Coronavirus - Doomsday

[TimHauck 1,799]

Looks like Ladapo might start recommending Chinese magic instead of the vaccine

 

 

 

[Cdub100 3,379]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Covid was a real pandemic.  Biggest year over year change in total deaths since 1918

Sure

[craftsman 1,045]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Looks like Ladapo might start recommending Chinese magic instead of the vaccine

 

 

Couldn't be any worse than the "vaccine" everyone has pushed over the last 2 years. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

24 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Couldn't be any worse than the "vaccine" everyone has pushed over the last 2 years. 

Actually Ladapo’s own study disagrees with you

 

 

 

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Actually Ladapo’s own study disagrees with you

That poster has a Ukrainian flag image next to his name. Not worth reading. And I don't know Ladapo.

[TimHauck 1,799]

Here is Professor Morris pointing out the bias in someone trying to use a regression analysis to show the effectiveness of the vaccine.  The dude is a straight shooter

 

 

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

Just now, craftsman said:

That poster has a Ukrainian flag image next to his name. Not worth reading. 

Neither was Ladapo’s study I guess, because you don’t even know what it says

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Neither was Ladapo’s study I guess, because you don’t even know what it says

All I said is anything is better than the fake vaccine that kills kids.

[TimHauck 1,799]

13 minutes ago, craftsman said:

All I said is anything is better than the fake vaccine that kills kids.

Fake news

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Fake news

516 pages worth of you spewing fake news and now this. Just let it go. The flu is here to stay and all your vaccines don't stop anything except for people's hearts.  

[TimHauck 1,799]

3 minutes ago, craftsman said:

516 pages worth of you spewing fake news and now this. Just let it go. The flu is here to stay and all your vaccines don't stop anything except for people's hearts.  

The vaccine stopped people from dying.  This is proven worldwide where the unvaccinated have died at higher rates.  The vaccine is a big part of the reason why Covid is just the flu now.

[Strike 3,956]

58 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Sure

Coincidentally, fewest motorcycle accident deaths since 1918 as well. 

[Hawkeye21 1,849]

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

21 minutes ago, Strike said:

Coincidentally, fewest motorcycle accident deaths since 1918 as well. 

Yeah, those 5,000 motorcycle deaths per year make a big difference in terms of total deaths.  Dumbass.

You forgot to admit you were wrong in the North Dakota crazy lib thread btw.

[Strike 3,956]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yeah, those 5,000 motorcycle deaths per year make a big difference in terms of total deaths.  Dumbass.

You forgot to admit you were wrong in the North Dakota crazy lib thread btw.

If you admitted all the times you were wrong Mike would run out of hard drive space.   So I guess the bored is better off with you continuing to be wrong even more than Worms but NOT admitting it.

[TimHauck 1,799]

Yet another GC righty contradiction:

 

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

If you admitted all the times you were wrong Mike would run out of hard drive space.   So I guess the bored is better off with you continuing to be wrong even more than Worms but NOT admitting it.

I admit when I’m wrong.  In this thread especially I usually wasn’t

[jerryskids 5,188]

9 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I already explained it.  I take it you haven’t read the trials, where the endpoint was symptomatic disease (with a positive test).

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about.  What does "symptomatic vs. presence" have to do with them not testing to see if it prevented transmission?

ETA:  I see your latest post; I still don't see the symptomatic vs. presence thing.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about.  What does "symptomatic vs. presence" have to do with them not testing to see if it prevented transmission?

ETA:  I see your latest post; I still don't see the symptomatic vs. presence thing.  

You are debating a liar. 

[lod001 1,237]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Yet another GC righty contradiction:

 

 

 She's a jabbed idiot. Plus she uses the word 'anti-vaxxers'. Therefor she has no credibility. Now when you see a person who believed it, got jabbed and then has figured out that it was in fact deadly garbage, THAT is someone you listen to - Dr. Malhotra. 

[lod001 1,237]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The vaccine stopped people from dying.  This is proven worldwide where the unvaccinated have died at higher rates.  The vaccine is a big part of the reason why Covid is just the flu now.

Oh that's pure retardation right there. The weak & fatties (85%) all died quickly. This has been covered already. The jabs did nothing. The same # of people would have died without these dummies taking it. As time went by, it mutated in order to continue. If the virus kills the host and does not mutate to be less severe, it ends up killing itself. Failed virology 101 I see. You believe its was the useless deadly garbage when its simply virology. My gawd, your ignorance is astounding.

[TimHauck 1,799]

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about.  What does "symptomatic vs. presence" have to do with them not testing to see if it prevented transmission?

ETA:  I see your latest post; I still don't see the symptomatic vs. presence thing.  

That post was confirming the trials did not test for transmission.   I was talking about “presence of the virus” which is the same as asymptomatic infection and goes hand in hand with not knowing if it prevents transmission, since if we knew it prevented asymptomatic infection then by definition it would also prevent transmission.

See the trial here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

“Further study is required to understand whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission to unvaccinated persons.”

Which is funny because if the GC would take that to mean the vaccine is junk (and again, early studies DID show it was also effective at preventing asymptomatic infection), then that would be yet another GC contradiction: “The vaccine is crap because we don’t know if it prevents asymptomatic infection…but also, if you don’t have symptoms then you’re not sick!!”

Here is another twitter discussion on the topic from February 2021, so again, not new news:

 

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

6 hours ago, lod001 said:

Oh that's pure retardation right there. The weak & fatties (85%) all died quickly. This has been covered already. The jabs did nothing. The same # of people would have died without these dummies taking it. As time went by, it mutated in order to continue. If the virus kills the host and does not mutate to be less severe, it ends up killing itself. Failed virology 101 I see. You believe its was the useless deadly garbage when its simply virology. My gawd, your ignorance is astounding.

Wrong again idiot.

 

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

6 hours ago, lod001 said:

 She's a jabbed idiot. Plus she uses the word 'anti-vaxxers'. Therefor she has no credibility. Now when you see a person who believed it, got jabbed and then has figured out that it was in fact deadly garbage, THAT is someone you listen to - Dr. Malhotra. 

You mean, confirmed liar Dr Malhotra?

 

 

[jerryskids 5,188]

52 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That post was confirming the trials did not test for transmission.   I was talking about “presence of the virus” which is the same as asymptomatic infection and goes hand in hand with not knowing if it prevents transmission, since if we knew it prevented asymptomatic infection then by definition it would also prevent transmission.

See the trial here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

“Further study is required to understand whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission to unvaccinated persons.”

Which is funny because if the GC would take that to mean the vaccine is junk (and again, early studies DID show it was also effective at preventing asymptomatic infection), then that would be yet another GC contradiction: “The vaccine is crap because we don’t know if it prevents asymptomatic infection…but also, if you don’t have symptoms then you’re not sick!!”

Here is another twitter discussion on the topic from February 2021, so again, not new news:

 

 

I don't see the bolded quote in your link, can you point it out?  

Regardless, I don't see why you went down this rabbit hole, other than you seem to like rabbit holes.  If your position is "they didn't test for transmission so this is old news," just say that, and we can move on to the discussion on why so many draconian measures were implemented without such data.   

[TimmySmith 2,782]

House of lies is crumbling. They act like we don't have the entire history on the internet.  Remember the term breakthrough. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I don't see the bolded quote in your link, can you point it out?  

Regardless, I don't see why you went down this rabbit hole, other than you seem to like rabbit holes.  If your position is "they didn't test for transmission so this is old news," just say that, and we can move on to the discussion on why so many draconian measures were implemented without such data.   

First page under “Limitations and remaining questions.”

I did basically say that in my first reply…

On 10/11/2022 at 4:43 PM, TimHauck said:

Lol this isn’t new. The trials were based on symptomatic disease, not presence of the virus.  The reasonable assumption was that if it was effective against transmission of symptomatic disease, it was also effective against transmission in general.   And in fact most early studies did find that to be true, prior to arrival of new variants.

And I was never in favor of vaccine mandates even if it was 100% effective at preventing transmission.  That doesn’t change the fact that it has been extremely effective at preventing deaths.

[TimHauck 1,799]

3 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

House of lies is crumbling. They act like we don't have the entire history on the internet.  Remember the term breakthrough. 

What have I lied about?  I’ll hang up and listen.

[TimHauck 1,799]

More bombs being dropped by Professor Morris:

 

This lady asks for a link, he gives 4.  Of course no response from her since

 

 

 

[Masshole 642]

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

15 minutes ago, Masshole said:

 

Ooh another righty contradiction…

Righties: why is anyone still talking about Covid, the pandemic is over?

Also righties: people who defended the vaccine are awfully quiet!

Yeah, the pandemic is over, thanks in large part to vaccines…

 

[Masshole 642]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Ooh another righty contradiction…

Righties: why is anyone still talking about Covid, the pandemic is over?

Also righties: people who defended the vaccine are awfully quiet!

Yeah, the pandemic is over, thanks in large part to vaccines…

 

Other than your points, if there are any here, being stupid.    The larger point that you conveniently ignore is that the people who argued against vax mandates (which is not to say "argued against the vax", i.e. me and most sane people) have been proven correct.   There was not enough testing, knowledge, or experience to justify people losing their jobs and being vilified for not getting vaxed.     I got vaxed.   I never once thought it was a good idea to mandate it for everyone.    It shouldn't be hard for a smart guy like you to figure that out.  

And actually, I posted that mostly because I loved the "worst opinion starter pack" meme.   That one is gold, Jerry, gold!   I didn't really even look at the tweet that prompted it.  

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

1 minute ago, Masshole said:

Other than your points, if there are any here, being stupid.    The larger point that you conveniently ignore is that the people who argued against vax mandates (which is not to say "argued against the vax", i.e. me and most sane people) have been proven correct.   There was not enough testing, knowledge, or experience to justify people losing their jobs and being vilified for not getting vaxed.     I got vaxed.   I never once thought it was a good idea to mandate it for everyone.    It shouldn't be hard for a smart guy like you to figure that out.  

And actually, I posted that mostly because I loved the "worst opinion starter pack" meme.   That one is gold, Jerry, gold!   I didn't really even look at the tweet that prompted it.  

 

I argued against vax mandates also.

[jerryskids 5,188]

10 hours ago, TimHauck said:

First page under “Limitations and remaining questions.”

I did basically say that in my first reply…

And I was never in favor of vaccine mandates even if it was 100% effective at preventing transmission.  That doesn’t change the fact that it has been extremely effective at preventing deaths.

The word "transmission" does not appear in that link, nor does the section you just referenced.

I'm missing where you are concluding "if it were effective against the transmission of symptomatic disease," why are you making that assumption.  Isn't that what's in question; it's proven effectiveness against transmission period?  I didn't hear that guy make such differentiations.

[TimHauck 1,799]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

The word "transmission" does not appear in that link, nor does the section you just referenced.

I'm missing where you are concluding "if it were effective against the transmission of symptomatic disease," why are you making that assumption.  Isn't that what's in question; it's proven effectiveness against transmission period?  I didn't hear that guy make such differentiations.

You don’t see this image in the link?

 

 

What guy are you talking about?  The effectiveness against symptomatic disease from the trial was not in question. What is in question is the effectiveness against transmission and asymptomatic disease which was not part of the trial and was not a secret that it wasn’t.  However, because it was effective against symptomatic disease, many thought it would also be effective against asymptomatic disease and transmission, which the early studies did show to be true.

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

16 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Wrong again idiot.

 

 

A statistician using or quoting %s. 100% of everyone next to me right now agrees this guy is an idiot. 

[jerryskids 5,188]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You don’t see this image in the link?

 

 

What guy are you talking about?  The effectiveness against symptomatic disease from the trial was not in question. What is in question is the effectiveness against transmission and asymptomatic disease which was not part of the trial and was not a secret that it wasn’t.  However, because it was effective against symptomatic disease, many thought it would also be effective against asymptomatic disease and transmission, which the early studies did show to be true.

 

No, I didn't click on the image, I read the words in the link.  And that never concludes it was effective against symptomatic transmission (again, that word never appears in the full text of the link), it only says they need to investigate transmission for asymptomatic.

The "guy" is the reason we are going down yet another Tim rat hole; the committee member who asked the Pfizer rep about testing for transmission and her response was "LOL no we were moving at the speed of science$#@!"  I asked a simple question, and here we are days later, no closer to an answer.

You've once again been obtuse enough to wear me out; I no longer have the interest of spending yet more time trying to understand the unique ways in which you parse the English language.  Congrats, you win.   

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

No, I didn't click on the image, I read the words in the link.  And that never concludes it was effective against symptomatic transmission (again, that word never appears in the full text of the link), it only says they need to investigate transmission for asymptomatic.

The "guy" is the reason we are going down yet another Tim rat hole; the committee member who asked the Pfizer rep about testing for transmission and her response was "LOL no we were moving at the speed of science$#@!"  I asked a simple question, and here we are days later, no closer to an answer.

You've once again been obtuse enough to wear me out; I no longer have the interest of spending yet more time trying to understand the unique ways in which you parse the English language.  Congrats, you win.   

You shouldn’t need to click on the image, it’s right there towards the top as the “research summary.”

If the rest of the text doesn’t use the word “transmission,” wouldn’t that be your proof that the trials didn’t test for transmission??

But yeah, maybe you do need a break because your conflating the terms.

No one was talking about “symptomatic transmission.” I’ll try to spell it out for you one more time:

The main endpoint of the trial was whether or not the trial participant got “symptomatic disease” and then tested positive for Covid.  As you and the link pointed out, it did not test for asymptomatic disease.  It also did not test for transmission (in other words, could someone who got Covid after being vaccinated spread it to someone else).

As such, what the “Pfizer guy” said was nothing new since the release of the trial data.

HTH

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

3 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

A statistician using or quoting %s. 100% of everyone next to me right now agrees this guy is an idiot. 

Lol, you couldn’t do like 3rd grade math earlier in this thread 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, you couldn’t do like 3rd grade math earlier in this thread 

100% of the people next to me think you're a liar.