"This Is A Test"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ohmin, Aug 13, 2021.

  1. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    While I accept your views there is a limit to what can be tolerated. Ignoring someone can work but they don't disappear and at some point what you say can and should have consequences.
  2. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    Well, I actually support banning for bullying / singling people out to pick on them for that reason you mention. Like people really put in a effort to single people out is quite pathetic, especially in a video game to boost extremely fragile psyches / egos.

    In fact I find it quite hypocritical that I was banned for calling a group of people terrorists versus like 7 people in the discord chat changing their names to mock me, or just the in general harassment I recieved in that discord.

    But I digress, I think Pro-Hulks point is very refreshing and more than valid. And as I have stated many times, Beth should not be lead dev nor a mod. But, I guess this is nature's way of telling me im getting too old for online video games. I'll be having my first son soon, and I intend on teaching him how to live a life free from addiction and degeneracy.
  3. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Honestly who cares? It's ancirnt history and your constant whining on the same subject has made me take Hulk's advice. Your on the ignore list...
  4. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    It doesen't matter what you say if the person you are communicating with filters your speech through a reality that is distorted. what you say will be redefined by an individuals ego, their subjective beliefs, and if your unlucky their self esteem.

    If this is TLDR here is an explanation from a man who keeps it simple. Jesse Lee Peterson has a unique point of view on todays humans.

  5. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    For further information on how humans in America became so ******** I give you this educational videos series from "The Days of Noah".

  6. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    I can't remember if it was you or 4chan that introduced me to JLP, but he is indeed based. He even had the balls to go on the daily stormer for an interview back when that was popular.

    I am just expressing how stupid it was that I was banned. I care because I was "deplatformed". And many people who are expressing the truth are getting de-platformed. There is a big crackdown on freedom, if you haven't noticed. It should concern you, if you stand for freedom. It's why Americans have the second amendment.
  7. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Personally, I've never banned any one (that wasn't just a spam bot) here despite having the ability to do so. I felt it was a conflict of interest for me to ban people given my position on the development team.

    That said, I think there's stuff to be banned for but for me the bar tends to be pretty high. In general, I'd say stuff like:
    • bots
    • repeated abusive behavior
    • posting of certain types of "offensive to all" images/materials
    • repeatedly posting off-topic for the community
    ... are all legitimate grounds for banning.

    For example, if someone kept posting gay porn into a children's Minecraft community, I think most people would think it fair to ban such a person (perhaps with the exception of @profhulk).

    Ultimately it depends on the kind of place you are running what is grounds for removal, given that different communities will require different standards depending on the participants - which is why "constitutional free speech" makes little sense as a barometer for moderation of a private forum.

    That said, moderation is basically a thankless job, and in my experience, most people who are moderated tend to deserve it on some level, though there are certainly legitimate examples of mod abuse.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    Ohmin, darklord48 and Bushido like this.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Recently, I said something was debatable and someone replied to me: "it's not."

    I said, "we are literally debating it right now."
    Ohmin likes this.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    All tests have false positives/negatives, just as all human memory is fallible, people also lie and make mistakes. Are you suggesting that no evidence is ever valid then since there's SOME possibility they might be wrong? Are you saying that since you are human and possibly wrong, that nothing you say should be considered correct and that the usefulness of your statements is also voided?


    You seem to be arguing that unless something can be shown to be 100% foolproof, then it's inadmissible, yet you feel there's a lot of "evidence" for the election fraud narrative?

    You have a problem with a death being attributed to COVID because of a positive PCR test with a small false positive rate and call it all "void" but you have no problem citing anecdotal VAERS data as evidence of the dangers of vaccines?

    You seem to have a very low bar for evidence when it's a narrative you want it to support, but on the flipside, your bar for evidence is so high for COVID. Could it be you are letting your personal bias affect how you view evidence and tests?


    Keep in mind that while there are false positives and false negatives, it is routine to run the tests again if there's reasonable doubt - for example, if you test positive for something and show absolutely no symptoms, it is pretty standard to test again. On the other hand, if you show symptoms and test negative, it is also common to test again - as I demonstrated with my own example from my wife's issue.

    At the same time, since the tests can have both false positives and negatives, in terms of overall statistics, there will be some extra counts and some missed counts - it's not as though it's only wrong in one direction (in your statements, you seem to be only be concerned with overcounting given your policy concerns).


    Finally, in statistics, there's the difference between being accurate and being precise.

    In this case, it's true that false positives and negatives can make things less precise, but in terms of accuracy, we aren't making policy decisions based on whether there were exactly 49756 people with COVID or 49285 with COVID. Rather, we care more about whether it's roughly 50000, or 5000. If it's actually not 50000, and is instead 49689, well, ok, but it's still nowhere near 5000.

    Specifically for COVID-19, the false positive rate is actually quite low: "In people who did not have COVID-19, antigen tests correctly ruled out infection in 99.5% of people with symptoms and 98.9% of people without symptoms." as compared to false negatives: "In people with confirmed COVID-19, antigen tests correctly identified COVID-19 infection in an average of 72% of people with symptoms, compared to 58% of people without symptoms."


    In the above example, if we use these numbers on the baseline of 50000 and suggest that it is 1% false positives, we'd have 49900 cases... and then if we add back the false negatives...

    Then if we also consider that not every one gets tested... will, you get the picture.


    The truth is that, unlike right wing fears of overcounting and used to justify isolation and quarantines as mentioned, we are actually underestimating the number of COVID cases and deaths, particularly when we consider the severe lack of testing early in the pandemic in the US and the fact that false positives are much less likely than false negatives.

    This isn't some weird thing with COVID - it's the case with most things - our incremental counts are always lower than the estimated actual counts.

    You can see this with the flu, where we estimate the number of cases and deaths, but the actual number of positive tests are relatively low.

    This was back in May
    "We first look at how many in-hospital deaths were observed in FluSurv-NET. The in-hospital deaths are adjusted for under-detection of influenza using methods similar to those described above for hospitalizations using data on the frequency and sensitivity of influenza testing. Second, because not all deaths related to influenza occur in the hospital, we use death certificate data to estimate how likely deaths are to occur outside the hospital. We look at death certificates that have pneumonia or influenza causes (P&I), other respiratory and circulatory causes (R&C), or other non-respiratory, non-circulatory causes of death, because deaths related to influenza may not have influenza listed as a cause of death. We use information on the causes of death from FluSurv-NET to determine the mixture of P&I, R&C, and other coded deaths to include in our investigation of death certificate data. Finally, once we estimate the proportion of influenza-associated deaths that occurred outside of the hospital, we can estimate the deaths-to-hospitalization ratio."
    Here was an image of the data back in May 2020, when people were saying "swine flu killed more people" as a way to claim COVID wasn't a problem:


    As you can see though, the Swine Flu numbers were ESTIMATED, and the incremental count was actually only ~18,000, while the number being compared to - the one for COVID, was an incremental count which only includes confirmed cases.

    In this case, the estimated numbers are considered "accurate" (i.e. roughly in line with the "true" value, which is impossible to actually get due to real world limitations), while the incremental count is "precise" (i.e. if you measure again, you get similar results) in that if you retested everyone, you'd get a similar number.


    So what's another way for us to estimate the ACTUAL number for COVID impacts?

    We can look at excess deaths compared to what we expected, and this number - the number of excess deaths, is a good deal higher than the incremental count of COVID deaths:

    "During January 26, 2020–February 27, 2021, an estimated 545,600–660,200 more persons than expected died in the United States from all causes. The estimated number of excess deaths peaked during the weeks ending April 11, 2020, August 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021. Approximately 75%–88% of excess deaths were directly associated with COVID-19. Excluding deaths directly associated with COVID-19, an estimated 63,700–162,400 more persons than expected died from other causes."​

    While there are certainly reasons to believe that some of the unattributed excess is not COVID, such as suicide, it seems reasonable to believe a non-zero amount of the unattributed excess is COVID associated.

    At the very least, the excess deaths data that show that COVID deaths account for ~80% of excess deaths, along with the other factors of lack of testing and a higher false negative rate than negative rate, suggests that the COVID deaths we currently count probably isn't overcounted, as there would still be many deaths unaccounted for relative to what we'd normally expect.

    Note that this data is corroborated across the globe, with excess deaths exceeding that attributed to COVID alone, so it's a consistent pattern, not just cherry picked because the US happens to have this.

    Of course, deaths data itself is not 100% foolproof either - heck, sometimes we have declared people dead who were actually still alive!

    In any case, like the PCR test, we shouldn't base our policies, ideas and conclusions based on ONE piece of evidence. Instead, it's important to look for corroborating or contradictory evidence so that we can validate the other piece of evidence.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
  11. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I'm in a similar boat. I don't have access to ban anyone, but the only bans I've ever requested were for bots. I do occasionally use my moderation abilities to move posts. I try to restrict it to moving posts from General to Off Topic when appropriate. Most of what I do is just cleaning up bots.
  12. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
  13. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    For those who might care to read it, here is a well cited paper discussing some of the potential dangers with new mRNA technologies.

    Originally posted on the website - International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, which has since been taken down.

    Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

    To provide a comparison here is a link to an opposing agenda, I find the words cognitive inoculation in this context particularly offensive.

    COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence

    An excellent open access source of peer-reviewed research articles

    and finally just because I respect and admire these 2 guys and this is how we all should intelligently debate this important subject.

    Heated Vaccine Debate - Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
    Ohmin likes this.
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This one was interesting. I have a problem with them classifying the COVID vaccines as "unprecedented" and linking it to low success as though this means they have a problem.

    First, their definition of unprecedented doesn't even fit in this case. Not all the COVID vaccines are mRNA AND there are multiple vaccines. Unprecedented category of vaccines are really meant for diseases that have eluded previous attempts at procuring a vaccine - which is why their rate of success is low - because it's hard, and we've have been trying for awhile. It's not normal to classify a NEW disease in this category. Logically, you can see how conflating vaccine development against long standing diseases vs vaccine development for a new disease is problematic.

    This type of thing doesn't actually provide evidence of anything, but is pretty typical of the way these types of discussion often go - where instead of evidence of a problem, they simply IMPLY there might be a problem.

    They criticized the preliminary efficacy data, and I think it's a reasonable criticism, but we have a lot more data now and they generally corroborate the preliminary data.

    Ultimately, lots of "what ifs" presented in this analysis that is certainly worth keeping an eye on, but very little actual proof that it is "worse than the disease" as the title sensationalistically asks. Granted, I don't necessarily understand all of the medical/technical jargon involved, but I did find little actual data supporting their statements, and even they tend to use words like "potentialities ," "plausible" and "scenario" which isn't data or evidence.

    Certainly, with billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines given out, it seems pretty clear to me anyway, that it is NOT worse than the disease which has killed millions globally, compared to 0 confirmed deaths that can be attributed directly to the vaccines.

    VAERS does reports some thousands of deaths following vaccines, but it doesn't purport to show causality. And if you think about it, with around 3 million deaths annually in the US, if 50% are vaccinated... we'd expect around 1.5 million deaths among those who were vaccinated simply as a natural consequence of the annual death rate, so the fact that VAERS reports only thousands makes it really difficult to consider the data as showing causal linkages.

    As I have said though, while general anti-vaccination attitudes tends to be pretty problematic, at least with the COVID-19 vaccine I can definitely understand the hesitancy, and I agree with the authors ultimate conclusion that we need to continue to study the technology and the vaccines.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2021
  15. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    I appreciate your response, until further study the aforementioned work will of course be largely hypothetical. As for arguing precedent, the term 'novel' is used for good reason when discussing mRNA research. While there are other vaccines available the majority in current useage, as your well aware use this technology.

    I find it strange that the number of deaths attributed solely to covid-19 is low and yet you claim confirmed deaths from vaccines is 0, does the same logic not apply for secondary symptoms in both cases?

    R.Kennedy Jnr is far better than I at discussing the current problems in the US with Regulators and "Big Pharma" , which he accurately describes as serial felons.

    Ultimately the choice should be yours to make and not mandated, and an informed opinion made with all available data.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
    Ohmin likes this.
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Yes, I would describe it as novel. But the reason that "unprecedented vaccines" have a low rate of passing Phase III trials isn't because the technology used is new, it's because we haven't developed a vaccine that works. Once a disease has a working vaccine, it's no longer "unprecedented" under the definition provided. At the same time, the reason these targets have low rates of passage is precisely because they haven't succeeded. If they succeeded on the first try, it'd have 100% success rate AND would no longer be unprecedented.

    In other words, how new the technology is doesn't have anything to do with the low rate of passing the trials for vaccines targeting a particular disease, and certainly isn't indicative of any side effects of the vaccines, but the authors throw this tidbit in there...

    I guess the intent is "How can these vaccines have passed if other vaccines didn't?!" But why one vaccine fails has very little to do with why another one fails or succeeds. There is no causal link between the two.

    It'd be like saying it's very hard to roll a 20 on a D20, and say there's a 95% failure rate to getting the max value, and then applying this 95% rule to every other dice, no matter if it's 100 sided, 6-sided, or if every face of the die actually had 20s or if it's even a die in the first place!

    It honestly just makes no sense to try and draw a correlation.

    To some extent, but there are 2 factors that are very important:

    One, COVID has symptoms that kill people. This is a fact. It may not be the case that someone having COVID means they were killed primarily because of COVID, but COVID is known to contribute to the death of people due to its symptoms.

    No such thing is known about the vaccines. Sure, it MAY do that, but no one has shown any evidence that it does.

    Two, excess death rates from the start of the pandemic clearly shows a large uptick in deaths. If it's not the global pandemic of a novel disease, then what is it?

    I would be fine with this if they were also held liable for any sickness or death they may cause by spreading the disease while there being mitigation tools freely available, but that's a tough thing to do.

    Oh, and this also presumes people have access to CORRECT information...
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  17. Bushido

    Bushido Devotee of the Blood Owl

    I mean I have 2nd hand (as opposed to third) insider knowledge from large ai corporate r&d departments that modern medicine has almost 0 correlation with actually helping people, to the point where entire divisions have been shut down and rebranded due to said results. Isn't it obvious at this point that you can trust nothing you hear about science as it relates to general welfare of citizens? You have to have your eyes wide shut not to see the signs.

    I was always highly skeptical, but the BLM protests during the 2 weeks to flatten the curve personally made me understand that media is completely deepstate owned.
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It can be true that there is a lot of rent seeking or unethical behavior from Big Pharma (which I believe to be true) AND that COVID kills people (which I believe to be true). It doesn't have to be one or the other.

    At the same time, I would tend to agree that profit is the motive, rather than helping people, but in some cases, both can be true, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive in all situations.

    Things are not always so black and white and all extremes in one direction.

    We already discussed this and you were unable to provide evidence of your claim in this regard, while I provided evidence to the contrary.

    Again, we already discussed that you trust very little, and that's fine, but it's hard for me to conclude that you are being objective when you consider every source to be suspect except the ones you agree with.


    Ultimately, this type of rhetoric ("all available information cannot be trusted unless I agree with it") doesn't really examine the facts in any objective way, it's just sowing doubt.

    It's similar to the whole thing I was discussing above, where the authors of the paper tried to link these vaccines to the "unprecedented vaccines" which have a low rate of passing Phase 3 tries as an attempt to make the vaccines look problematic. It sows doubt, but doesn't actually PROVE anything.

    If there's specific criticism of the data that you'd like to discuss, I am willing to entertain those, but I don't see any meaningful conversations about the subject coming out of these generic statements of doubt.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  19. L33Ch

    L33Ch I need me some PIE!

    Under the definition it was actually "suitable" as opposed to "working" which is a broader criteria.

    I'm less interested in arguing semantics than if the vaccines are both safe and effective, which is the definition by which they can be mandated under current US laws.

    The first part I partially agree with, in fact a new technology MIGHT help explain why it passed the trials in a far shorter time than the 12.5 years as expected with more traditional methods.

    Logically though any new tech rushed into use is likely to have some unforeseen side effects, especially long term.

    Nanotech by it's very nature makes these effects both difficult and expensive to measure.

    Without comprehensive peer reviewed toxicological studies the safety of these products must be viewed as potentially dangerous.

    This seems fair to me, but if the stated efficacy is 90-95% then this would be a very rare event occuring primarily between unvaccinated people, given you actually believe those claims.

    As to that efficacy, relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data can lead to outcome reporting bias. - Brown, R. B. (2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199

    I have never claimed there wasn't a disease, only that deaths solely from Covid-19 were low, but there are also many other factors, some related to the effects of lock downs and overall economic decline.

    You may include pathogenic priming and/or paradoxical immune enhancement as factors also if the effects can be clinically established.

    VAERS data is unreliable for drawing even causal conclusions.

    I will leave them to judge what is accurate, correctness is too loaded a term in the current climate.
    Ohmin likes this.
  20. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Did you see my very long post explaining a number of reasons for why it was so fast (some of which really is that it wasn't actually as fast as people think)?
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021

Share This Page