Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[SB Shock]

IMG_4203.JPG

[shock]

Hopped in the thread to make sure that the tards are still tardin.

[ShockerFever]

Hopped in the thread to make sure that the tards are still tardin.

Just one of em. And he's getting lambasted pretty regularly now.

[ShockerFever]

Can we get another MS Paint update on the "surge" please?

[C0|dB|00ded]

I can safely say that myself, and many on this site, are living in absolute reality, while you are off on an island. A very sad, lonely, and cold island...

Out of the mouth of babes! You would be correct in describing me as living on an island.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I can’t help it if you don’t understand.

If I'm anything, I'm a knowledge sponge. I'll gladly take anything of value you have to offer! I must warn you though, my filter is strong. I've interviewed two cardiologists in the past month (one was supposedly the best in the city), and had them both on their heels in 10 mins. I'm not saying I'm some functional medicine virtuoso; just a guy with unusual gifts.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Interesting response that has absolutely zero to do with the question I was answering. Way to stay on subject. Nothing in your response relates to the status of Texas since dropping their mandate.

Thanks for playing. Your canned responses are so stimulating...

Thanks for playing? I merely corrected your statement which contained biased sample fallacy flaws with one that offers context and a path towards truth. Sample bias is a favorite technique of 'Fever's (don't be like him) and is the folly of undisciplined minds, Groupthink addicts, and Fox News celebrities (as well as their liberal counterparts).

Translated: Don't try to argue specific points in time that serve your narrative bias while ignoring the rest of the data and expect someone like myself not to catch it instantly.

[ShockerFever]

A lot of credibility is lost (like there’s any left anyway) when somebody calls 1 out of the 7 standard major media networks “group think”, while the other 6 report only the other side of the issues. That’s one of the funnier points that gets hammered on here.

Gotta learn to do math and/or unplug.

[SubGod22]

Thanks for playing? I merely corrected your statement which contained biased sample fallacy flaws with one that offers context and a path towards truth. Sample bias is a favorite technique of 'Fever's (don't be like him) and is the folly of undisciplined minds, Groupthink addicts, and Fox News celebrities (as well as their liberal counterparts).

Translated: Don't try to argue specific points in time that serve your narrative bias while ignoring the rest of the data and expect someone like myself not to catch it instantly.

So somebody asking a specific question about a specific action and the results from it are data bias. But you jumping back 4+ months to pull up things that have zero to do with it is putting it in context? You make absolutely no sense. Your response was all about you bringing in your bias agenda to add things that were absolutely irrelevant to the question that was posed.

And I love how you accuse anyone that doesn't think exactly like you as someone who watches nothing but Fox and falls for group think, when you just regurgitate the most liberal views of the liberal networks in just about every post. I don't personally watch much in the way of national news. I will on occasion watch Kennedy on FBN and Gutfeld on FNC, but that's because neither of them are hardcore conservatives and offer some different views than the rest of Fox. Especially Kennedy who is one of the few libertarian minded people on any network. She also typically has a liberal and conservative on as well as a few other libertarian voices from time to time. So she offers a variety of views. And Gutfeld also adds a libertarian perspective with Kat Timpf as a regular. He tends to be more conservative leaning, but not hardcore all things GOP.

The rest of my news comes from a collection of liberal, conservative and libertarian options online, be it the NTY, NYP, WSJ or many independent outlets.

Maybe you should attempt to mix in a variety of options instead of clinging to the hardcore bias outlets you mostly pull from and regurgitate.

And stop trying to change the topic when someone poses a question to try and feed your own ego about doom and gloom from the past when things are looking up in a number of places, just because they don't prescribe to the same the sky is falling philosophy as you do.

Also, the bolded section of your quoted post above describes exactly what you did in that very post. Congratulations on that.

[1979Shocker]

Covid: Under-30s offered alternative to AstraZeneca jab - BBC News

Under-30s are to be offered an alternative Covid jab to the AstraZeneca vaccine due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots, the UK's vaccine advisory body says.

[wufan]

If I'm anything, I'm a knowledge sponge. I'll gladly take anything of value you have to offer! I must warn you though, my filter is strong. I've interviewed two cardiologists in the past month (one was supposedly the best in the city), and had them both on their heels in 10 mins. I'm not saying I'm some functional medicine virtuoso; just a guy with unusual gifts.

Maybe they were struggling to understand your blueanon conspiracies?

[C0|dB|00ded]

So somebody asking a specific question about a specific action and the results from it are data bias. But you jumping back 4+ months to pull up things that have zero to do with it is putting it in context? You make absolutely no sense. Your response was all about you bringing in your bias agenda to add things that were absolutely irrelevant to the question that was posed.

And I love how you accuse anyone that doesn't think exactly like you as someone who watches nothing but Fox and falls for group think, when you just regurgitate the most liberal views of the liberal networks in just about every post. I don't personally watch much in the way of national news. I will on occasion watch Kennedy on FBN and Gutfeld on FNC, but that's because neither of them are hardcore conservatives and offer some different views than the rest of Fox. Especially Kennedy who is one of the few libertarian minded people on any network. She also typically has a liberal and conservative on as well as a few other libertarian voices from time to time. So she offers a variety of views. And Gutfeld also adds a libertarian perspective with Kat Timpf as a regular. He tends to be more conservative leaning, but not hardcore all things GOP.

The rest of my news comes from a collection of liberal, conservative and libertarian options online, be it the NTY, NYP, WSJ or many independent outlets.

Maybe you should attempt to mix in a variety of options instead of clinging to the hardcore bias outlets you mostly pull from and regurgitate.

And stop trying to change the topic when someone poses a question to try and feed your own ego about doom and gloom from the past when things are looking up in a number of places, just because they don't prescribe to the same the sky is falling philosophy as you do.

Also, the bolded section of your quoted post above describes exactly what you did in that very post. Congratulations on that.

1) Panel van boy's question was not honest. It was a variation on his typical Covidiot rendition. As ham-handed as his "nuanced" troll was, you missed every single bit of it.

2) I don't regurgitate liberal views; I regurgitate the views of the greatest medical minds in the world. I also occasionally add some of my own for flavor and style points.

3) I don't need to mix anything new into my data flow. I deal in reality which encompasses logic, statistics, and risk analysis.

4) I don't prescribe[SIC] to any "sky is falling philosophy"; I subscribe to facts and data. And my assessment and recommendations on the pandemic have been exemplary thus far (feel free to fact-check). Far exceeding the quality of the crack-pot, conspiratorial, propagandist opinions that are vomited out by the resident contributors on a near-daily basis.

P.S. I apologize if I offended you.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Maybe they were struggling to understand your blueanon conspiracies?

Yeah, that was probably it. :)


I had to Google "blueanon".

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-blue-anon/

Recently uttered by several prominent conservatives, including right-wing commentator Candace Owens and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the term “Blue Anon” is used to describe liberals who they claim espouse conspiratorial views.

Picking up talking points from Marjorie Greene now? Ouch! Pot meet kettle my friend.

UnPLuGgggggg!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Covid: Under-30s offered alternative to AstraZeneca jab - BBC News

Yeah, I smelled a rat with AstraZeneca and spoke about it on here months ago. I almost dragged my folks into one of their vaccine studies. Thankfully we didn't follow through after I did some research on their lack of study transparency. Still a mostly safe vaccine and should be airdropped into all 3rd world countries. It's just not as safe (or effective) as the Pfizer/Moderna option. And Johnson & Johnson's is

[Kung Wu]

The greatest medical minds in the world do not work for the government. And they darn sure are not career politicians.