914 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Is the UK an anomaly? Are the positive tests just picking up spike proteins from the Vaccine being made long after they were supposed to be? Why would that affect the number of deaths or hospitalizations?

https://dailyexpose....w-has-covid-19/

"Just ask the new Health Secretary Sajid Javid, who had his second dose of a Covid-19 vaccine on the 16th May 2021, and is now self-isolating at home with his family after testing positive for Covid-19 on the 17th July 2021, two months later.

Even Public Health England data shows us that the majority of people now dying with Covid-19 have been fully vaccinated. 68% of the deaths to have occurred in the over 50’s since February 2021 have been people who had received two doses of the jab.

Once you do the maths based on the data presented by PHE you can see that your risk of dying with Covid-19 is 990% higher if you are fully vaccinated compared to not being vaccinated at all. The data also shows us that your chances of being hospitalised with Covid-19 increases by 81.24% if you have had two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine. This is not what they said they would do on the tin."

 

BTW - let us consider for a moment how fundamentally flawed this analysis is by not considering what the percentages of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated are and the overall trend of new covid cases.

 

Let's think about the situation if 100% of the population were vaccinated.  Since no vaccine is 100% effective, at this point in time 100% of the new hospital admissions for covid would be from vaccinated people. One would not conclude from that information that the vaccine is completely ineffective, or worse makes you more likely to get covid.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The Devil's Advocate in me says:

 

"The thing that bugs me about statistics such as those presented in the article linked to by Daniel Cooper (post #840) is the fact that things such as age, and comorbidities are lacking. Are the unvaccinated admissions predominantly over 85 and with severe obesity as well as heart disease? Were they in otherwise perfect health and between the ages of 20 and 35? Too much implication from too little data. Were they talking about the same SARS-CoV2 variants when comparing time frames?"

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 19 July 2021 - 08:18 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The Devil's Advocate in me says:

 

"The thing that bugs me about statistics such as those presented in the article linked to by Daniel Cooper (post #840) is the fact that things such as age, and comorbidities are lacking. Are the unvaccinated admissions predominantly over 85 and with severe obesity as well as heart disease? Were they in otherwise perfect health and between the ages of 20 and 35? Too much implication from too little data. Were they talking about the same SARS-CoV2 variants when comparing time frames?"

 

I agree. All we've got is a broad statement that 60% of the people with covid admitted to the hospital were unvaccinated and another broad fact that about 90% of the population in the UK has had at least one vaccination.  

 

My point is that one does not conclude from this that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid (much less 900+ percent more likely).  That article from the "Exposé" is deeply flawed. I can say that their conclusions are definitely not true. What is the truth is open to debate without further data.

 

I certainly haven't seen any data that would lead me to believe that the any of the main vaccines are ineffective or even make the situation worse.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"My point is that one does not conclude from this that the vaccine makes you more likely to get covid (much less 900+ percent more likely).  That article from the "Exposé" is deeply flawed. I can say that their conclusions are definitely not true. What is the truth is open to debate without further data."

 

Agreed.

 

"I certainly haven't seen any data that would lead me to believe that the any of the main vaccines are ineffective or even make the situation worse."

 

And agreed.

 

 

An alternative headline could be written as: "40% of all COVID-19 Hospital Admissions are Among the Vaccinated". Which, until one digs deeper, might seem to be a dire statistic.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

An alternative headline could be written as: "40% of all COVID-19 Hospital Admissions are Among the Vaccinated". Which, until one digs deeper, might seem to be a dire statistic.

 

It seems dire if you don't consider that 90% of the people walking around have been vaccinated to some extent.  And what you really want is the overall infection rate in the general population. If that number is falling quite a bit, then the fact that 40% of them came from the 90% with at least one vaccination is less troubling.  Declining infection rates are what we're after, after all. If the infection rate is 10% of what it was at the peak then the fact that 40% came from the vaccinated population isn't the end of the world. As some of these countries approach full vaccination, one would expect that the % infected coming from the vaccinated population will rise. 

 

In the limit if you achieve 100% vaccination then 100% of the new cases will be from the vaccinated. As long as the number of new cases is acceptably low, that's completely fine.

 

Of course, everything we're looking at now is entangled with what appears to me to be a pretty strong seasonal effect on infection rate. The real test will be the infection rates as we get into September. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"It seems dire if you don't consider that 90% of the people walking around have been vaccinated to some extent."

 

Right, that's one of the reasons why I wrote: "...until one digs deeper...".

 

Some people might infer from my alternative-example-headline (written in such a manner that might be consistent with the aim of projecting a particular confirmation bias by the hypothetical author), that: "Whoa! Vaccines can't be that effective if they still allow for such a high (40%) hospital-admissions rate among the vaccinated! I was expecting a 5%, or maybe 6%, admissions rate, at the very most! Man!, if it reaches 50%, or greater, why should I even bother getting vaccinated at all!". Of course, the former hypothetical reaction comes from not digging deeper into what's happening.

 

I don't feel inclined to do the analysis, but, if I was, I'd look to determine the reasons that people were being tested in the first place. Was it because of symptoms?, Presumed exposure but without symptoms?, Because of age or comorbidities?, Political reasons?, other reasons? Did the reasons for testing change between the "winter wave" and July? Those factors might affect conclusions drawn from the "tested positive" data.

 

Also, what was the availability of tests during the "winter wave" where there were "around 60,000 people testing positive per day," in comparison to the July 2021 period where "We are now somewhere on towards 50,000.". 

 

Was the number of people that were being tested similar in size for the "winter wave" and in July? Would it be reasonable to assume that because of increases in the number of people vaccinated, and in the number of people that gained immunity as a result of having been infected, that the number of positive tests should have decreased more significantly than by 10,000 per day in the intervening months between "winter wave" and July because the total pool of people susceptible to infection had decreased in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts? Was there a significant shift in the SARS-CoV2 variant infection-profile between "winter wave" and July, and might any such shift affect what is currently being seen? 

 

Looking at the graph in the article, which appears in a picture of what might be a TV screen, one can see that there is a decline from the "winter wave" that looks somewhat like the left limb (negative x) of a parabola, to about April where the curve remains relatively flat until the end of May where it appears to start an exponential growth rate, which Sir Patrick suggests: "We are now somewhere on towards 50,000. So we're quite close to the size of the winter wave of infections and this is going to increase.".  Looking at the trajectory, if the trend continues, the positivity rates will exceed those of the "winter wave" (but see above provisos). 

 

Where are these projected positivity increases going to come from? I'd need to know the population of England as well as an estimated infection rate in order to determine the number of people who might be expected to contract COVID-19 in a totally unvaccinated population. That number I would compare to the observed infection rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and thence on to the hospital admissions rates. In addition, I'd need to look at demographic data, etc.

 

There certainly would be other considerations, but, since I'm not going to do an analysis, there is no reason to proceed with listing them. 

[Mind]

 

 

In the limit if you achieve 100% vaccination then 100% of the new cases will be from the vaccinated. As long as the number of new cases is acceptably low, that's completely fine.

 

Not fine. Not according to the health tyranny that apparently runs most of the world now. There is already a push for new lockdowns, news mask mandates, because of different variants spreading. What people forget is that coronaviruses have been circulating around the world essentially forever, like all respiratory viruses. Now, there is apparently NO acceptable low level of respiratory illness anymore. There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world - all that you need to do is get a new vaccine for every new mutated virus, never see anyone in person, lock yourself in your house, and wear a respirator/goggles/hazmat suit until the day you die.

[Hip]

There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world - all that you need to do is get a new vaccine for every new mutated virus

 

I thought this was a website about longevity?

 

You seem to be arguing that people are better off catching viruses and bacteria, and then developing one of the hundreds of common chronic diseases which are linked to persistent viral or bacterial infection in the body. 

 

The dystopian vision is actually the world we currently live in, where cancers and chronic diseases are rife, and always have been. We accept disease because it is so common, and because disease has been with us since the dawn of humanity.

 

But in the future, the way we have lived up to now will be viewed as the dark ages of humanity. 

 

It is the view of some researchers that we will only overcome these diseases by eliminating the pathogens that they are linked to.

 

 

 

We can of course in future designate a large island like say Madagascar for all the people who prefer to be unvaccinated and virally infected, and who thus choose to be disease-ridden. But I think most people will choose to be pathogen-free and disease-free, and live in perfect physical and mental health. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 20 July 2021 - 08:48 PM.

[geo12the]

Not fine. Not according to the health tyranny that apparently runs most of the world now. There is already a push for new lockdowns, news mask mandates, because of different variants spreading. What people forget is that coronaviruses have been circulating around the world essentially forever, like all respiratory viruses. Now, there is apparently NO acceptable low level of respiratory illness anymore. There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world - all that you need to do is get a new vaccine for every new mutated virus, never see anyone in person, lock yourself in your house, and wear a respirator/goggles/hazmat suit until the day you die.

 

The tyranny I see in the word today is ignorant anti-science conspiracy theorists ginned up by quacks and political hacks like Sucker Carlson.  In your world people would be exposed to viruses like Polio and Smallpox. both of which have been eliminated thanks to vaccines. No thanks! I am grateful to modern science. Without it I might have gotten Polio and been crippled. Or died from Smallpox. Yes we have been exposed to Coronaviruses forever BUT not this particular one so what on Earth is your point?  We should all just be infected with COVID and take HCQ or drink bleach? No thanks! Know what? I've been vaccinated and going out and working and living my life with no mask and I don't need to fear getting a nasty disease that could put me on a ventilator or give my long-term effects. I will gladly roll up my sleeve for the booster.  

Edited by geo12the, 20 July 2021 - 10:43 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The tyranny I see in the word today is ignorant anti-science conspiracy theorists ginned up by quacks and political hacks like Sucker Carlson.  In your world people would be exposed to viruses like Polio and Smallpox. both of which have been eliminated thanks to vaccines. No thanks! I am grateful to modern science. Without it I might have gotten Polio and been crippled. Or died from Smallpox. Yes we have been exposed to Coronaviruses forever BUT not this particular one so what on Earth is your point?  We should all just be infected with COVID and take HCQ or drink bleach? No thanks! Know what? I've been vaccinated and going out and working and living my life with no mask and I don't need to fear getting a nasty disease that could put me on a ventilator or give my long-term effects. I will gladly roll up my sleeve for the booster.  

 

I don't think Mind's post was railing against vaccines.  I think that his point was that the idea that we are going to drive this particular virus to extinction anytime soon is unrealistic and that advocating for continued shutdowns until covid is completely gone is irrational.  

 

Yes, this site is about longevity. We all want to live as long and as healthy lives as possible.  But realistically, immortality isn't on the near term horizon.  

 

Taking your example of polio and smallpox - those vaccines were fantastic achievements. Having met a man that spent a good portion of his life in an iron lung, I'm certainly glad Dr. Salk developed a vaccine. But, people did not shut down the world until everyone got a smallpox or polio vaccine and these viruses were driven to extinction or near extinction. Vaccine programs that lasted years and decades were initiated and in the meantime the world went on. 

 

Also, realize that being skeptical of this particular vaccine isn't necessarily being against vaccines in general. They are new technology and they were pushed into the market rapidly. So it's isn't totally crazy to be concerned about the vaccine's safety.  

 

I took the Pfizer vaccines back in March. I looked at the risks of getting covid vs. the potential risks of the vaccine and decided I was better off with the vaccine. But I'm not going to castigate someone that makes a different decision. "My body my choice" used to be a slogan got a lot of play in the past. That slogan seems to be out of favor with a certain segment with respect to vaccines at the moment.

[geo12the]

I don't think Mind's post was railing against vaccines.  I think that his point was that the idea that we are going to drive this particular virus to extinction anytime soon is unrealistic and that advocating for continued shutdowns until covid is completely gone is irrational.  

 

Yes, this site is about longevity. We all want to live as long and as healthy lives as possible.  But realistically, immortality isn't on the near term horizon.  

 

Taking your example of polio and smallpox - those vaccines were fantastic achievements. Having met a man that spent a good portion of his life in an iron lung, I'm certainly glad Dr. Salk developed a vaccine. But, people did not shut down the world until everyone got a smallpox or polio vaccine and these viruses were driven to extinction or near extinction. Vaccine programs that lasted years and decades were initiated and in the meantime the world went on. 

 

Also, realize that being skeptical of this particular vaccine isn't necessarily being against vaccines in general. They are new technology and they were pushed into the market rapidly. So it's isn't totally crazy to be concerned about the vaccine's safety.  

 

I took the Pfizer vaccines back in March. I looked at the risks of getting covid vs. the potential risks of the vaccine and decided I was better off with the vaccine. But I'm not going to castigate someone that makes a different decision. "My body my choice" used to be a slogan got a lot of play in the past. That slogan seems to be out of favor with a certain segment with respect to vaccines at the moment.

 

I was just being honest. The tyranny and dystopia I see is from anti-science conspiracy theorists and extreme right-wing politics, which have become intermingled.

 

What Mind said was:

 

"coronaviruses have been circulating around the world essentially forever, like all respiratory viruses. Now, there is apparently NO acceptable low level of respiratory illness anymore. There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world"

 

This is distorted histrionic nonsense. Propaganda that might be spewed by Sucker Carlson.  

 

"My body my choice"- as I have stated before I agree with this philosophy- people can do, or say, what they want. But free speech means I can say that I think that what they are doing or saying is foolish. It's a two-way street.

[Daniel Cooper]

Well, speaking of histrionics ..... Tyranny?  Dystopia? 

 

Who is stopping you from getting vaccinated? A vaccine was released in about 1 year which I would consider to be fantastic rather than dystopic.  And which is more tyrannical - expressing an opinion about the current situation with mandates or lockdowns, or to be prohibited from engaging in certain normal activities by law in a way that has not historically been done in prior pandemics?  Mind is expressing an opinion. He has no power to enforce his will on you. How you get from that to tyranny is simply beyond me.

 

And the "Sucker Carlson" comments. Really? Are we now engaging in grade school level discourse? As far as I know Carlson isn't a member here, so you can call him any name you want. But this is clearly ad hominen rather than substantive.

 

I fear that we've entered at era where to hear an opinion that differs from our own is considered to be tyrannical and dystopic.  As if we have some right not to have our opinions challenged. This attitude is frankly infantile.

 

[geo12the]

Well, speaking of histrionics ..... Tyranny?  Dystopia? 

 

Who is stopping you from getting vaccinated? A vaccine was released in about 1 year which I would consider to be fantastic rather than dystopic.  And which is more tyrannical - expressing an opinion about the current situation with mandates or lockdowns, or to be prohibited from engaging in certain normal activities by law in a way that has not historically been done in prior pandemics?  Mind is expressing an opinion. He has no power to enforce his will on you. How you get from that to tyranny is simply beyond me.

 

And the "Sucker Carlson" comments. Really? Are we now engaging in grade school level discourse? As far as I know Carlson isn't a member here, so you can call him any name you want. But this is clearly ad hominen rather than substantive.

 

I fear that we've entered at era where to hear an opinion that differs from our own is considered to be tyrannical and dystopic.  As if we have some right not to have our opinions challenged. This attitude is frankly infantile.

 

Well, actually, it's Mind who used the terms Tyranny "tyranny that apparently runs most of the world now" and Dystopia "There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world" in the post I responded to. 

 

Mind and others here post links to Tucker Carlson like he is a medical expert. They introduced him here, not me.

 

" have our opinions challenged" -  And that is what I am doing, challenging Mind's opinions. It's a two-way street 

 

I see lots of regurgitation of right-wing propaganda here, like Tucker Carlson links, instead of meaningful discussion.  There are tons of places where people can discuss politics,  why here on a forum about Longevity?

Edited by geo12the, 21 July 2021 - 04:22 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Well, actually, it's Mind who used the terms Tyranny "tyranny that apparently runs most of the world now" and Dystopia "There is a growing belief (dystopian vision) that viruses can be eliminated from the world" in the post I responded to. 

 

Mind and others here post links to Tucker Carlson like he is a medical expert. They introduced him here, not me.

 

" have our opinions challenged" -  And that is what I am doing, challenging Mind's opinions. It's a two-way street 

 

I see lots of regurgitation of right-wing propaganda here, like Tucker Carlson links, instead of meaningful discussion.  There are tons of places where people can discuss politics,  why here on a forum about Longevity?

 

With respect to tyranny and dystopia, the difference between Mind and Carlson is that they have no power to make you do anything. So they can't be tyrannical even in theory. Not the case for those running the government or our social media oligarchy.

 

With respect to conspiracy theories, do we remember a mere six months ago when to discuss the possibility that covid originated at the WIV was to be labeled as a wackjob kook and likely to be banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube? Even real scientists and medical professionals stating this opinion were censored and shut down. Oh how times have changed. Openly contemplating the idea that this was an engineered virus that somehow escaped a Wuhan lab can now be discussed in polite company by all the right people. Even Fauci has admitted it is a possibility. Of course, the material facts haven't changed one iota in the interim. There was always a credible circumstantial case to be made for covid escaping the WIV.

 

And yet, in the US we currently have an administration actively promoting the fact that they are "working with social media platforms" to "remove misinformation concerning covid-19". Apparently oblivious to both the spirit and perhaps the letter of the First Amendment (since the government has essentially deputized the social media companies to carry out their censorship on their behalf) and the fact that in science often times today's misinformation is tomorrow's established theory.   Now I'd call that tyrannical. 

[Raphy]

I thought this was a website about longevity?

You seem to be arguing that people are better off catching viruses and bacteria, and then developing one of the hundreds of common chronic diseases which are linked to persistent viral or bacterial infection in the body.

The dystopian vision is actually the world we currently live in, where cancers and chronic diseases are rife, and always have been. We accept disease because it is so common, and because disease has been with us since the dawn of humanity.

But in the future, the way we have lived up to now will be viewed as the dark ages of humanity.

It is the view of some researchers that we will only overcome these diseases by eliminating the pathogens that they are linked to.



We can of course in future designate a large island like say Madagascar for all the people who prefer to be unvaccinated and virally infected, and who thus choose to be disease-ridden. But I think most people will choose to be pathogen-free and disease-free, and live in perfect physical and mental health.

Do you really not see that chronic diseases and cancer are product of modernity? If not a failure of modern medecine, they are certainly a failure of the Western mindset. This mindset which sees entry "problem" as a lack a control, and the only solution is more control. More regulations. More surveillance. More technologies. More drugs.
A terrorist attack? We need more surveillance, more control of the people.
New strains of bacteria resistant to most antibiotics? We need more antibiotics or new antibiotics.
A new virus? We need to control people to prevent its transmission.
An increase in depression? Nothing more SSRIs won't fix.
Climate getting more irregular? Just need new technologies to lower atmospheric CO2.
Increase in chronic diseases? How about an anti obesity pill or an exercise mimetic?

Note that some of those issues are themselves the results of previous technologies. At no point does the Western mindset stop to take a more broad, holistic, world view and see where do problems come from. No no no, Science and Progress are sacred in a world where nothing is. You don't look back, only forward.

There is such a thing as for balance. Not everything is amenable to more control. If you actually "follow the science" you could see that. The signs are everywhere: Exercise, cold shower, sauna, fasting,... They all work the same way. Hormesis. What do you do to grow your muscle? You tire them. What do think you should do for your immune system to become more resistant? Avoid any contact with pathogens?


But you touch the crux of it though. You think we just need more technological fixes on our way to paradise. And you really seem to think that material comfort is the sign that everything is getting better. But is it, really? Is that why Western people are addicted to painkillers and anti-depressants? Do we just need more materials goods, more media to consume, socially distanced, protected by our masks and alarms and trackers and cameras and barriers and more and more gizmos and more pills to numb the pain away.
Let me suggest you something else. Let me suggest you that we human beings needs connection to Nature, connection to other human beings, agency and autonomy, meaningful work and meaningful life. Being part of our living planet Earth. A technological cage will still be a cage, and no amount of pills can make us happy in a cage.

To be happy, we don't need to survive like rats safe in our cage, we need to LIVE.

Edited by Raphy, 21 July 2021 - 06:37 PM.

[Hip]

Do you really not see that chronic diseases and cancer are product of modernity?

 

I would say you may be speaking from the perspective of someone who is healthy, and has never faced a nasty life-destroying chronic disease. 

 

I am glad you are healthy. Unfortunately I am in the category of those who have a nasty chronic disease (myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome) which affects every aspect of life. I am mostly housebound and unable to work due to this ME/CFS disease which was triggered by a viral infection. So I have learnt the hard way that human biological life can be profoundly flawed. 

 

I agree with your philosophical perspective. I agree that modernity and technology brings many bad things, like stressful jobs, information overload, too much rationality instead of more human soul and emotion, too much focus on money making and profit rather than other deeper values, too much focus on materialism rather than enjoying art and culture, too much self gratification rather than developing higher consciousness.

 

My philosophical views were very similar to yours. But then once I developed ME/CFS as a result of a viral infection, my perspective changed a bit, because I realized that all is not right with the human biological world. We do not normally notice, but humanity is blighted with illness and disease. 

 

Once you become sick, however, you notice how so many other people suffer from illnesses large and small, either physical illness or mental illnesses (mental illnesses are increasing being viewed as originating in physical disease of the brain). 

 

The human mind plays tricks, because if you are healthy, you are never truly aware of the world of the sick and disabled. The human mind blots out unpalatable truths about life. Nobody wants to think that they will one day become sick, but this is the reality for most people, because most of us will die from a protracted chronic disease which eventually kills us. But even as I write this, your mind will blot out this truth, because it is a truth not easy to cope with. Sigmund Freud called that a defense mechanism of the psyche: the mind refuses to acknowledge a truth if it is very unpleasant.

 

You probably think (erroneously) that exercise, good diet, yoga, fasting, holistic living, etc are going to protect you from chronic disease. They can help, but if you acquire a pathogen that lives in your body tissues and screws up your metabolic processes, you may end up with a chronic disease.

 

Nature works beautifully until a pathogen comes along and screws everything up. For example, in Italy, olive trees which are 500 years old provided olive oil for generations. Now all of a sudden, these olive trees have become diseased with the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa, and they are dying in their millions, and is devastating the Italian olive oil business. 

 

You can talk of balance or a holistic approach as much as you like, but it will not protect an olive tree from this bacterium. And though a healthy lifestyle is aways preferable, even that will not protect you if a virus you catch starts to chronically infect one of your organs.

 

 

 

As for diseases being created by the modern world, there are some diseases which are on the increase in the modern world, such as autoimmune diseases. But generally, disease goes back to ancient times, where they have been recorded by great physicians like Hippocrates.

 

There may have been a golden era of health before the agricultural revolution, when humans were still hunter-gatherers.

 

Many researchers believe that the humans suffered much more sickness after we switched from hunter-gathering to farming (the agricultural revolution), 10,000 years ago. Once we became farmers and raised livestock, we unfortunately began living in much closer contact with animals, and so many animal viruses were able to jump into human populations, afflicting all the subsequent generations ever since. Many of the viruses that most adults have living in our bodies may have come from the agricultural revolution, when we made the mistake of living at close quarters with many animals.

Edited by Hip, 21 July 2021 - 07:37 PM.

[geo12the]

With respect to tyranny and dystopia, the difference between Mind and Carlson is that they have no power to make you do anything. So they can't be tyrannical even in theory. Not the case for those running the government or our social media oligarchy.

 

With respect to conspiracy theories, do we remember a mere six months ago when to discuss the possibility that covid originated at the WIV was to be labeled as a wackjob kook and likely to be banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube? Even real scientists and medical professionals stating this opinion were censored and shut down. Oh how times have changed. Openly contemplating the idea that this was an engineered virus that somehow escaped a Wuhan lab can now be discussed in polite company by all the right people. Even Fauci has admitted it is a possibility. Of course, the material facts haven't changed one iota in the interim. There was always a credible circumstantial case to be made for covid escaping the WIV.

 

And yet, in the US we currently have an administration actively promoting the fact that they are "working with social media platforms" to "remove misinformation concerning covid-19". Apparently oblivious to both the spirit and perhaps the letter of the First Amendment (since the government has essentially deputized the social media companies to carry out their censorship on their behalf) and the fact that in science often times today's misinformation is tomorrow's established theory.   Now I'd call that tyrannical. 

 

The problem is there is lots of misinformation being amplified on social media. You've got people spewing lies and distortions about vaccines and the end result is less people will be vaccinated and more people will die. I think people can do what they want with their bodies, BUT if someone is spewing BS yes I will call them out in blunt terms.     

[Daniel Cooper]

The problem is there is lots of misinformation being amplified on social media. You've got people spewing lies and distortions about vaccines and the end result is less people will be vaccinated and more people will die. I think people can do what they want with their bodies, BUT if someone is spewing BS yes I will call them out in blunt terms.     

 

I suppose I'm less concerned about misinformation than you. In the end usually the truth wins out. But, let's stipulate - in the interim people might believe things that are factually incorrect.

 

The question is, what do you do about that? The answer many give is "well, we give the government the power to silence those spreading misinformation".

 

I see two issues with that:

 

1.) It assumes that those in control of the government have the ability to determine truth from falsehood.  At the end of the day, the people making these determinations are politicians. Sure, they may be advised by "experts" (which often time have their own political agendas that aren't necessarily aligned with the truth), but the politicians make all the decisions.  And frankly, I wouldn't suggest trusting Donald Trump or Joe Biden with telling us what the truth is.

 

2.) More often than not, "misinformation" tends to be not things that are demonstrably false, but things that those in power find inconvenient.  Having studied a lot of history, nine times out of ten you can take that to the bank.

 

So we can both bemoan that some people are saying untrue things and unfortunately some are believing them, but if you're going to hand someone the power to determine what is true and what isn't and censor accordingly, I think your cure is worse than the disease.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 21 July 2021 - 08:02 PM.

[geo12the]

I suppose I'm less concerned about misinformation than you. In the end usually the truth wins out. But, let's stipulate - in the interim people might believe things that are factually incorrect.

 

The question is, what do you do about that? The answer many give is "well, we give the government the power to silence those spreading misinformation".

 

I see two issues with that:

 

1.) It assumes that those in control of the government have the ability to determine truth from falsehood.  At the end of the day, the people making these determinations are politicians. Sure, they may be advised by "experts" (which often time have their own political agendas that aren't necessarily aligned with the truth), but the politicians make all the decisions.  And frankly, I wouldn't suggest trusting Donald Trump or Joe Biden with telling us what the truth is.

 

2.) More often than not, "misinformation" tends to be not things that are demonstrably false, but things that those in power find inconvenient.  Having studied a lot of history, nine times out of ten you can take that to the bank.

 

So we can both bemoan that some people are saying untrue things and unfortunately some are believing them, but if you're going to hand someone the power to determine what is true and what isn't and censor accordingly, I think your cure is worse than the disease.

 

1) I don't have much to add to this discussion other that misinformation is worse today because social media amplifies it and feeds it to an increasing isolated (because of COVID and social media) audience. 1/3 of the country believes the last election was stolen because their guy lost and he claims it was stolen. They would have fully supported a coup and flushed our democracy down the drain.

 

2) I am not blind or naïve.  I do think censorship and cancel culture is a problem on both the left and right these days. But I see misinformation as a separate issue from censorship. I know you like to bring up silencing of the lab leak theory as censorship. All I can say is that I have been arguing with people on social media since the pandemic started that the lab leak was a viable hypothesis that must be examined and I was never censored. Setting the lab leak example aside, I have a question for you: Someone makes a claim on social media that is demonstrably false. Maybe some quack MD claims that COVID can be cured by gargling with ginger and coriander or someone claims COVID was genetically engineered in a secret lab at UCLA run by ANTIFA and Proud Boy scientists. Those examples may seem far-fetched but are not when you consider how many people these days believe Qanon and other nonsense.  Would you be ok with a private company like Facebook or twitter (not the government) removing those easy to be proven false claims from THEIR platform? Where do you draw the line? I don't have the answers but I feel like we are evolving into the excellent movie Idiocracy.   

Edited by geo12the, 23 July 2021 - 02:57 PM.

[Mind]

Larry Page, who runs the company promoting the world-wide pandemic response (through Google and Youtube), which includes advice to "not talk to anyone" (in Australia), to masks, to life-crushing businesses-destroying lockdowns, depression-inducing isolation, a huge jump in suicides, and a world-wide medical tyranny....

 

is enjoying life in tropical paradise free from any restrictions.

 

Politicians and rich elites get to do whatever they want. Your life gets destroyed during a disease outbreak that has an IFR of a small fraction of 1%. This is awful.

[Raphy]

I would say you may be speaking from the perspective of someone who is healthy, and has never faced a nasty life-destroying chronic disease. 
 
I am glad you are healthy. Unfortunately I am in the category of those who have a nasty chronic disease (myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome) which affects every aspect of life. I am mostly housebound and unable to work due to this ME/CFS disease which was triggered by a viral infection. So I have learnt the hard way that human biological life can be profoundly flawed. 
 
I agree with your philosophical perspective. I agree that modernity and technology brings many bad things, like stressful jobs, information overload, too much rationality instead of more human soul and emotion, too much focus on money making and profit rather than other deeper values, too much focus on materialism rather than enjoying art and culture, too much self gratification rather than developing higher consciousness.
 
My philosophical views were very similar to yours. But then once I developed ME/CFS as a result of a viral infection, my perspective changed a bit, because I realized that all is not right with the human biological world. We do not normally notice, but humanity is blighted with illness and disease. 
 
Once you become sick, however, you notice how so many other people suffer from illnesses large and small, either physical illness or mental illnesses (mental illnesses are increasing being viewed as originating in physical disease of the brain). 
 
The human mind plays tricks, because if you are healthy, you are never truly aware of the world of the sick and disabled. The human mind blots out unpalatable truths about life. Nobody wants to think that they will one day become sick, but this is the reality for most people, because most of us will die from a protracted chronic disease which eventually kills us. But even as I write this, your mind will blot out this truth, because it is a truth not easy to cope with. Sigmund Freud called that a defense mechanism of the psyche: the mind refuses to acknowledge a truth if it is very unpleasant.
 
You probably think (erroneously) that exercise, good diet, yoga, fasting, holistic living, etc are going to protect you from chronic disease. They can help, but if you acquire a pathogen that lives in your body tissues and screws up your metabolic processes, you may end up with a chronic disease.
 
Nature works beautifully until a pathogen comes along and screws everything up. For example, in Italy, olive trees which are 500 years old provided olive oil for generations. Now all of a sudden, these olive trees have become diseased with the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa, and they are dying in their millions, and is devastating the Italian olive oil business. 
 
You can talk of balance or a holistic approach as much as you like, but it will not protect an olive tree from this bacterium. And though a healthy lifestyle is aways preferable, even that will not protect you if a virus you catch starts to chronically infect one of your organs.
 
 
 
As for diseases being created by the modern world, there are some diseases which are on the increase in the modern world, such as autoimmune diseases. But generally, disease goes back to ancient times, where they have been recorded by great physicians like Hippocrates.
 
There may have been a golden era of health before the agricultural revolution, when humans were still hunter-gatherers.
 
Many researchers believe that the humans suffered much more sickness after we switched from hunter-gathering to farming (the agricultural revolution), 10,000 years ago. Once we became farmers and raised livestock, we unfortunately began living in much closer contact with animals, and so many animal viruses were able to jump into human populations, afflicting all the subsequent generations ever since. Many of the viruses that most adults have living in our bodies may have come from the agricultural revolution, when we made the mistake of living at close quarters with many animals.

 
Hello Hip,
 
I am sincerely sorry that you are suffering for this debilitating disease. Really.
 
However my point was not to say that chronic diseases didn't exist, but that they were anecdotal before. See for example How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died , which shows that

Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. This paper relates the nutritional status of the mid-Victorians to their freedom from degenerative disease; and extrapolates recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of public health today.

And as you mentioned, we can say with confidence that the health of our ancestors before the advent of agriculture was better that what we have today.

The point you mention about whole population of Olive trees succumbing to a disease is interesting. For our modern reductionist "scientific" approach, the problem is a new bacteria strain that out of nowhere appeared to kill off all these trees. But what if this bacterium was a proximate cause? What if the real "cause" was an ecosystem going out of balance by a "thousand cuts" from human civilization? How would you prove that? How would you prove that ancestral or indigenous wisdom about ecosystem balance is wrong, preferably before we suicide the whole planet? I don't have answers to those questions, I don't know what right. I just know that while reductionist science has brought many achievements, I am becoming increasingly wary that it is blinding us to a bigger picture that we are in crucial need of seeing.
Yes viruses exist and cause damage, and Science in all its form has its place. But only in the context of a more balanced wisdom. Not the runaway endless series of technological fixes and societal upheaval that we are following right now.

Anyway, hope you manage to not suffer too much, and thank you for your interventions. Peace

Edited by Raphy, 24 July 2021 - 12:44 PM.

[Hip]

 
Hello Hip,
 
I am sincerely sorry that you are suffering for this debilitating disease. Really.
 
However my point was not to say that chronic diseases didn't exist, but that they were anecdotal before. See for example How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died

 

I think it's hard to analyze the prevalence of chronic disease in past eras, because many diseases which we have now classified did not even have a name 100 to 200 years ago. Now that could be because these diseases were rarer then; but it might also be that because a disease and its symptoms was not named and classified, so nobody diagnosed them, and thus they appear rarer, but that may have just been down to lack of diagnosis. 

 

 

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that chronic diseases were much rarer in the mid-Victorian era (1850 to 1870). How can we explain this in terms of the pathogen theory of chronic disease, and also in terms of the ecosystem going out of balance?

 

Well one obvious factor is the increased urbanization that occurred at that time. The more you cram the populace into dense urban spaces, the more easily pathogens can spread person to person.

 

The population of London was around 2 million in 1850, but by the end of the Victorian era in 1901, it had risen to around 6 million, thanks to a massive wave of urbanization. So millions of people moved from small towns and villages in the country, to live in crammed cities and crammed transport. Most human viruses spread via saliva or nasal secretions; so if you move to a large city, and thus live in close social or professional contact with many more human beings (compared to living on a rural farm), you are going to get a great deal more pathogen exposure. 

 

The natural human ecosystem is not highly dense urban environments, but small towns and villages. Huge metropolises like London or Paris did not exist before around 1900. 

 

 

We also have developed highly efficient global transportation systems over the last 200 years, allowing people to easily move from one part of the world to another. This allows pathogens that are only found in one part of the world to spread globally. 

 

This incidentally is the cause of the Italian olive tree disaster: the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa comes from the Americas, but was not naturally found in Europe. But due to globalization, this bacterium likely hitched a ride of some foodstuff coming from the the Americas, and has now established itself in Europe. Xylella fastidiosa is really just an invasive species which is devastating the olive trees.

 

Globalization has caused many incidences of invasive plant, animal, insect or microbial species that were localized to one part of the world to spread to other parts, where they cause disruption. 

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2021 - 02:38 PM.

[Raphy]

Agreed on this Hip

[geo12the]

For your discussion a fascinating article from this morning's NYTimes. I posted the entire article because it's a very interesting read and I see him quoted and discussed here a good deal.
 
 
The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online
Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines.

July 24, 2021

SAN FRANCISCO — The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were “a medical fraud” and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots “alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.”
Its assertions were easily disprovable. No matter. Over the next few hours, the article was translated from English into Spanish and Polish. It appeared on dozens of blogs and was picked up by anti-vaccination activists, who repeated the false claims online. The article also made its way to Facebook, where it reached 400,000 people, according to data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned tool.
 
The entire effort traced back to one person: Joseph Mercola.
 
Dr. Mercola, 67, an osteopathic physician in Cape Coral, Fla., has long been a subject of criticism and government regulatory actions for his promotion of unproven or unapproved treatments. But most recently, he has become the chief spreader of coronavirus misinformation online, according to researchers.

“Mercola is the pioneer of the anti-vaccine movement,” said Kolina Koltai, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies online conspiracy theories. “He’s a master of capitalizing on periods of uncertainty, like the pandemic, to grow his movement.”
Some high-profile media figures have promoted skepticism of the vaccines, notably Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham of Fox News, though other Fox personalities have urged viewers to get the shots. Now, Dr. Mercola and others in the “Disinformation Dozen” are in the spotlight as vaccinations in the United States slow, just as the highly infectious Delta variant has fueled a resurgence in coronavirus cases. More than 97 percent of people hospitalized for Covid-19 are unvaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
 
......
 
And rather than directly stating online that vaccines don’t work, Dr. Mercola’s posts often ask pointed questions about their safety and discuss studies that other doctors have refuted. Facebook and Twitter have allowed some of his posts to remain up with caution labels, and the companies have struggled to create rules to pull down posts that have nuance.

.......
 
In May, Dr. Mercola took down many of his own Facebook posts to evade the social network’s crackdown on anti-vaccine content. Facebook also recently removed his Feb. 9 article. But Dr. Mercola has continued to raise vaccine questions. In a Facebook post on Friday, he used another study to mull how useful the Pfizer vaccine was against Covid-19 variants. One headline in the post said the vaccine was only 39 percent effective, but it did not cite another statistic from the study that said the vaccine was 91 percent effective against serious illness. “Is this possible? We were told 95 percent effectiveness,” he wrote.
Within a few hours, the post had been shared more than 220 times.
 
Read the entire article here

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 August 2021 - 02:58 AM.

[Mind]

They just keep doing it. They pass laws and mandates to send common people to prison, hand out life-crushing fines, use their platforms to destroy the reputation of other people who do not follow the mandates.

 

AND THEN VIOLATE THE MANDATES CONSTANTLY!

 

Nancy Pelosi not concerned at all about getting or spreading the virus Even after mandating masks in Congress.

 

Joe Biden parties with big-wigs and obscenely wealthy donors. No masks, just a day after CDC says everyone should be wearing masks indoors, even vaccinated people.

 

Mayor of Washington DC is so worried about the transmission that a new mask mandate is going into effect, yet parties with everyone for her birthday as if nothing is going on.

[Dorian Grey]

Interesting turn in the lab leak hypothesis: 

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-221009323.html

 

Wuhan lab report raises further questions about possible COVID-19 lab leak

 

"Months ahead of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab requested bids for major renovations to air safety and waste treatment systems in research facilities that had been operational for less than 2 years, according to a new congressional report on the pandemic’s origins, obtained by Fox News.

"Such a significant renovation so soon after the facility began operation appears unusual," said the report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Republican staff. The projects for air disinfection, hazardous waste and central air conditioning systems "all raise questions about how well these systems were functioning in the months prior to the outbreak of COVID-19."

-----------------------------------

Why the major upgrade of bio-safety systems in their brand new level-4 lab? 

Could it be they were pushing the boundaries of risky business?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 01 August 2021 - 11:26 PM.

[Mind]

The Babylon Bee absolutely nails it with sarcasm.

 

If you did what the former President is doing (throwing a party with hundreds of people), in many states, and in many countries of the world, you would be fined at a minimum, probably dragged out of your party in handcuffs, sent to prison etc... If you are an elite politician or obscenely wealthy...no problem.

[geo12the]

The Babylon Bee absolutely nails it with sarcasm.

 

If you did what the former President is doing (throwing a party with hundreds of people), in many states, and in many countries of the world, you would be fined at a minimum, probably dragged out of your party in handcuffs, sent to prison etc... If you are an elite politician or obscenely wealthy...no problem.

 

"Barack Obama reportedly cancels ‘big’ 60th birthday bash"

[Mind]

"Barack Obama reportedly cancels ‘big’ 60th birthday bash"

 

 

"Reportedly".

 

Do you think the possible cancellation was because of pushback - bad optics - regarding COVID protocols?

 

Another politician with supporters not at all concerned about transmitting the virus. Just doing a photo-op with a mask.

[geo12the]

"Reportedly".

 

Do you think the possible cancellation was because of pushback - bad optics - regarding COVID protocols?

 

Another politician with supporters not at all concerned about transmitting the virus. Just doing a photo-op with a mask.

 

You are supposed to be a moderator here but you always are pushing a political agenda. I honestly don't care if Pelosi or whoever is caught taking off a mask for a picture or Obamas 60th birthday bash (For the record - I am NOT a Democrat). And I don't see what it adds to the conversation other than validating your political views and conspiratorial thinking.  Can we get back to discussions and not obsessing over birthday parties?