No asymptomatic spread?
-
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 16:13 last edited by@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 16:17 last edited by@jolly the web site deserves attack
They purposely misrepresent in the name of ideological nonsense.
That’s evil
-
Interesting site.
It puts Reuters, the FT, and The Economist under 'least biased'. WaPo/NYT Left Center, WSJ Right Center, MSNBC Left, Fox News Right.
Seems reasonable.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 16:24 last edited by Renauda -
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 16:30 last edited by Renauda@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking the website. However, bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking the website. However, bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 16:41 last edited by@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking it however bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
Once again, you're attacking the website, without saying a word about the studies. Is that willful ignorance or just snobbery? The studies referenced are not religious in any way.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly
Beauregard, it doesn't matter how I get my information, but you're right on that when I do get my information, I'll have no truck at all with reactionary Christian organisations' websites or publications such as Lifesite News.Again, you're attacking the website, not the studies.
Indeed I am attacking it however bach has more than sufficiently excoriated the website in all its mendacities for me to add further comment.
Once again, you're attacking the website, without saying a word about the studies. Is that willful ignorance or just snobbery? The studies referenced are not religious in any way.
-
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 17:04 last edited by@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 17:16 last edited by@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
It’s easy: next time you want people to focus on the data or the underlying study, just post that study.
Unless you actually want people to read that website’s (mis)interpretation of the data, why link to that website at all? Just link straight to the data from the get go and you would not need to tell people to review the data like you do now.
-
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 17:19 last edited by
There are viable vaccines now for covid
covid has lost
it's all over
it is just a matter of time to distribute the vaccine
Is it treasonous for people to still say that covid is deadly?
Or should we wait for the process run it's course?
-
There are viable vaccines now for covid
covid has lost
it's all over
it is just a matter of time to distribute the vaccine
Is it treasonous for people to still say that covid is deadly?
Or should we wait for the process run it's course?
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 17:46 last edited by@copper actually it’s not over.
If the vaccine rollout is not keeping pace with infections many many more people are going to die in 2021
-
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 18:00 last edited by
We're not even close to done yet. Luckily my MIL will get first dose next week. My first hope is her assisted living place opens back up where we can visit.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
Whether it's ignorance or snobbery or just plain old anti-clericalism is irrelevant. I am attacking it for precisely the same reason bach laid bare its false witness of the study. Full stop.
Then you are as much of a fruitcake as anything you accuse them if being. You may not like Christianity, or you can despise the views of a website that promotes human life. But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
That's the bottom line.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 18:17 last edited by@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
That's the bottom line.
Let me quote John Cleese:
"Oh I see now, it's all about bottoms. Of course, it's always about bottoms with your lot."
-
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 18:22 last edited by
I think the point is that the article originally posted is willfully misleading and potentially very dangerous.
Enough people have died of this awful disease already without more misinformation being spread. These so-called Christians should be ashamed of themselves.
-
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 18:38 last edited by
This claim is also not difficult to debunk at all. For people who test positive but are asymptomatic - all you need to do is check the viral load in their nasal cavities.
This has been done. It’s the same viral load as people with symptoms.
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
It’s easy: next time you want people to focus on the data or the underlying study, just post that study.
Unless you actually want people to read that website’s (mis)interpretation of the data, why link to that website at all? Just link straight to the data from the get go and you would not need to tell people to review the data like you do now.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 19:47 last edited by@axtremus said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
It’s easy: next time you want people to focus on the data or the underlying study, just post that study.
Unless you actually want people to read that website’s (mis)interpretation of the data, why link to that website at all? Just link straight to the data from the get go and you would not need to tell people to review the data like you do now.
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
-
This claim is also not difficult to debunk at all. For people who test positive but are asymptomatic - all you need to do is check the viral load in their nasal cavities.
This has been done. It’s the same viral load as people with symptoms.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 19:49 last edited by@xenon said in No asymptomatic spread?:
This claim is also not difficult to debunk at all. For people who test positive but are asymptomatic - all you need to do is check the viral load in their nasal cavities.
This has been done. It’s the same viral load as people with symptoms.
What about the Chinese study published in Nature?
-
@axtremus said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
But do not let your venom dissuade you from reviewing non-biased data.
It’s easy: next time you want people to focus on the data or the underlying study, just post that study.
Unless you actually want people to read that website’s (mis)interpretation of the data, why link to that website at all? Just link straight to the data from the get go and you would not need to tell people to review the data like you do now.
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
wrote on 31 Dec 2020, 22:31 last edited by Renauda 1 Jan 2021, 00:20@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that perhaps you too didn't go to the link and read the study either.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
-
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that perhaps you too didn't go to the link and read the study either.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
wrote on 1 Jan 2021, 00:22 last edited by@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that you didn't go to the link and read the study any more than I did.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
No, I read both studies.
Did you?
Besides, I've linked Lifesite before. Yes, they have an agenda, but not anymore than other sites that are linked here. Seeing how much interest I've generated, I think I'll link them more often.
-
@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
@jolly said in No asymptomatic spread?:
First thing I saw, so first thing I linked. The article had a direct link to the study.
But you never thought to comment that the Lifesite News article was not accurately representing the findings of the study. That leads me to believe that you didn't go to the link and read the study any more than I did.
BTW, since you were on about bottoms earlier, did you ever offer a rebuttal to what bach posted about this article?
No, I read both studies.
Did you?
Besides, I've linked Lifesite before. Yes, they have an agenda, but not anymore than other sites that are linked here. Seeing how much interest I've generated, I think I'll link them more often.
-
No, I just read the article. That was enough for me to lose complete interest.
Say, how's that rebuttal to bach's post coming along?
wrote on 1 Jan 2021, 00:30 last edited by@renauda said in No asymptomatic spread?:
No, I just read the article. That was enough for me to lose complete interest.
Say, how's that rebuttal to bach's post coming along?
What rebuttal would you like to hear?
Secondly, before you make a total ass out of yourself, why don't you go through the two studies and give a measured opinion?