percentages

[Noah Sombrero]

A prettygood article on covid percentages.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20211012&instance_id=42622&nl=the-morning&productCode%3DNN=&regi_id=168737577&segment_id=71397&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F3920aed4-2adc-5e7a-8901-0271ca47d214&user_id=76ec685a6aafbeed5231ac9a25a2d59f

It says that hospital admissions for unvaccinated people over 65 in
the seattle area are a little less than 4 per 100,000. In britain,
for unvaccinated people over 80, it is more like 99 per 100,000.

Admissions for people younger than that, or who are vaccinated, are a
lot less.

The seattle numbers are from Jan to Sept 2021. For britain, they are
Sept 6 to Oct 3, 2021. So the results are not comparable for that and
other reasons. But they do say that your odds of not getting a
serious covid infection are pretty good at any age group. Notice that
these studies have large sample sizes.

So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
Are you civil?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

A person does not have a "right" to not get a disease. If a person
believes they are at risk, the necessity to mitigate that risk is on them.

One person cannot infringe on or negate the equal rights of another
person to improve their position in life.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the scientifically documented fact
people with the vax can get and can give covid to other people.

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:23:54 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 10/12/2021 10:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>
>> A prettygood article on covid percentages.
>>
>> https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20211012&instance_id=42622&nl=the-morning&productCode%3DNN=&regi_id=168737577&segment_id=71397&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F3920aed4-2adc-5e7a-8901-0271ca47d214&user_id=76ec685a6aafbeed5231ac9a25a2d59f
>>
>> It says that hospital admissions for unvaccinated people over 65 in
>> the seattle area are a little less than 4 per 100,000. In britain,
>> for unvaccinated people over 80, it is more like 99 per 100,000.
>>
>> Admissions for people younger than that, or who are vaccinated, are a
>> lot less.
>>
>> The seattle numbers are from Jan to Sept 2021. For britain, they are
>> Sept 6 to Oct 3, 2021. So the results are not comparable for that and
>> other reasons. But they do say that your odds of not getting a
>> serious covid infection are pretty good at any age group. Notice that
>> these studies have large sample sizes.
>>
>> So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
>> covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
>> probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
>> Are you civil?
>
>A person does not have a "right" to not get a disease.

They do have a right to not get infected by you because of negligence
or deliberate act. For instance, if you have vd and have sex with
another person without telling them, you are going to the slammer.

>If a person
>believes they are at risk, the necessity to mitigate that risk is on them.
>
>One person cannot infringe on or negate the equal rights of another
>person to improve their position in life.

Avoiding being sick is not simply an improvement to their position in

life.

>Meanwhile you continue to ignore the scientifically documented fact
>people with the vax can get and can give covid to other people.

As my referenced document shows all passings are possible with various
probabilities. Less transmission goes with more protection.

If you informed your partner and wore a condom, it is not your fault
if she gets vd from you. Otherwise, it is.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Not telling your partner that you have a sexually transmissible disease
would be the same as if I went out among other people while knowing I
have covid. That would be considered negligence under the law and what
libertarians might consider an act of aggression against them.

Not getting the vax and being around other people while being healthy,
especially if previously infected and now immune, would not be.

[Noah Sombrero]

Covid is more tricky, because you can have it and not know it, or it
can be so mild you think it is something else. Regardless you can
still spread it.

The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

On 10/12/2021 4:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
> The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
> immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.

Not the same, but probably even better:

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1605

T and B cells have a central role in fighting off infections and,
crucially, in establishing long term immunity. Some T and B cells act as
memory cells, persisting for years or decades, primed and ready to
reignite a broader immune response should their target pathogen arrive
in the body again. It’s these cells that make truly long term immunity
possible.

A study published in February in Science assessed the proliferation of
antibodies as well as T and B cells in 188 people who had had covid-19.7
Although antibody titres fell, memory T and B cells were present up to
eight months after infection. Another study in a comparably sized cohort
reported similar results in a preprint posted to MedRxiv on 27 April.8

Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at
the University of California San Francisco, says we have evidence that T
and B cells can confer lifelong protection against certain diseases
similar to covid-19. A well known Nature paper from 2008 found that 32
people born in 1915 or earlier still retained some level of immunity
against the 1918 flu strain, 90 years hence.9 “That is really profound,”
she says.

A paper published in July 2020 in Nature found that 23 patients who had
recovered from severe acute respiratory syndrome still possessed CD4 and
CD8 T cells, 17 years after infection with SARS-CoV-1 in the 2003
epidemic.10 What’s more, some of those cells showed cross reactivity
against SARS-CoV-2, despite the participants reporting no history of
having covid-19.


https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resistance/index.html

Recovered COVID-19 patients retain broad and effective longer-term
immunity to the disease, suggests a recent Emory University study, which
is the most comprehensive of its kind so far. The findings have
implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as
well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.

The longitudinal study, published recently on Cell Reports Medicine,
looked at 254 patients with mostly mild to moderate symptoms of
SARS-CoV-2 infection over a period for more than eight months (250 days)
and found that their immune response to the virus remained durable and
strong.

Emory Vaccine Center director Rafi Ahmed, PhD, and a lead author on the
paper, says the findings are reassuring, especially given early reports
during the pandemic that protective neutralizing antibodies did not last
in COVID-19 patients.

“The study serves as a framework to define and predict long-lived
immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection. We also saw indications
in this phase that natural immunity could continue to persist,” Ahmed
says. The research team will continue to evaluate this cohort over the
next few years.

Researchers found that not only did the immune response increase with
disease severity, but also with each decade of age regardless of disease
severity, suggesting that there are additional unknown factors
influencing age-related differences in COVID-19 responses.

In following the patients for months, researchers got a more nuanced
view of how the immune system responds to COVID-19 infection. The
picture that emerges indicates that the body’s defense shield not only
produces an array of neutralizing antibodies but activates certain T and
B cells to establish immune memory, offering more sustained defenses
against reinfection.

“We saw that antibody responses, especially IgG antibodies, were not
only durable in the vast majority of patients but decayed at a slower
rate than previously estimated, which suggests that patients are
generating longer-lived plasma cells that can neutralize the SARS-CoV-2
spike protein.”

Ahmed says investigators were surprised to see that convalescent
participants also displayed increased immunity against common human
coronaviruses as well as SARS-CoV-1, a close relative of the current
coronavirus. The study suggests that patients who survived COVID-19 are
likely to also possess protective immunity even against some SARS-CoV-2
variants.


https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30005-sars-cov-2-immune-response-improves-long-term-protection/

The findings, published in Nature, provide the strongest evidence yet
that the immune system “remembers” the virus and, remarkably, continues
to improve the quality of antibodies even after the infection has waned.
Antibodies produced months after the infection showed increased ability
to block SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mutated versions such as the South
African variant.

The researchers found that these improved antibodies are produced by
immune cells that have kept evolving, apparently due to a continued
exposure to the remnants of the virus hidden in the gut tissue.

Based on these findings, researchers suspect that when the recovered
patient next encounters the virus, the response would be both faster and
more effective, preventing re-infection.

“This is really exciting news. The type of immune response we see here
could potentially provide protection for quite some time, by enabling
the body to mount a rapid and effective response to the virus upon
re-exposure,” says Michel C. Nussenzweig, the Zanvil A. Cohn and Ralph
M. Steinman Professor and head of the Laboratory of Molecular
Immunology, whose team has been tracking and characterizing antibody
response in Covid-19 patients since the early days of the pandemic in
New York.

Long-lasting memory

Antibodies, which the body creates in response to infection, linger in
the blood plasma for several weeks or months, but their levels
significantly drop with time. The immune system has a more efficient way
of dealing with pathogens: instead of producing antibodies all the time,
it creates memory B cells that recognize the pathogen, and can quickly
unleash a new round of antibodies when they encounter it a second time.

But how well this memory works depends on the pathogen. To understand
the case with SARS-CoV-2, Nussenzweig and his colleagues studied the
antibody responses of 87 individuals at two timepoints: one month after
infection, and then again six months later. As expected, they found that
although antibodies were still detectable by the six-month point, their
numbers had markedly decreased. Lab experiments showed that the ability
of the participants’ plasma samples to neutralize the virus was reduced
by five-fold.

In contrast, the patients’ memory B cells, specifically those that
produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, did not decline in number, and
even slightly increased in some cases. “The overall numbers of memory B
cells that produced antibodies attacking the Achilles’ heel of the
virus, known as the receptor-binding domain, stayed the same,” says
Christian Gaebler, a physician and immunologist in Nussenzweig’s lab.
“That’s good news because those are the ones that you need if you
encounter the virus again.”

Viral stowaways

A closer look at the memory B cells revealed something surprising: these
cells had gone through numerous rounds of mutation even after the
infection resolved, and as a result the antibodies they produced were
much more effective than the originals. Subsequent lab experiments
showed this new set of antibodies were better able to latch on tightly
to the virus and could recognize even mutated versions of it.

“We were surprised to see the memory B cells had kept evolving during
this time,” Nussenzweig says. “That often happens in chronic infections,
like HIV or herpes, where the virus lingers in the body. But we weren’t
expecting to see it with SARS-CoV-2, which is thought to leave the body
after infection has resolved.”

[Love]

In article <sk4mju$7n9$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

Correct, under either libertarian OR classical
liberal thought, as far as I can tell.


--
Love

[Love]

In article <kbrbmg9ho59o5t3e5...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st says...

>
>The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
>immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.

Who will say that even vaccination with one
brand does not provide the same immunity as
vaccination with another brand.

There are no absolutes here, only differences
in what levels of risk are sufficient to
situationally suspend the principle of
individual liberty.

Gloss and grammar around that as you will.


--
Love

[Noah Sombrero]

Notice the language:

COVID-19 survivors may possess wide-ranging resistance to the disease

may=might in common parlance. The title of the paper is tentative
because this one result is not in itself conclusive, as with the rest
below. The issue is not settled until scientists decide it is. Until
then, it is best to do what you can to protect you fellow humans. You
can consider the issue settled when local health agencies start
accepting proof of previous infection as equal to vaccination.

--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <sk4t0q$4v7$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

Very interesting.

Naturally acquired immunity should be equal to
being vaxxed with regards to exemption from
pandemic restrictions, as far as I am concerned.
In fact, that it is not so-regarded is
suggestive to me that there is another motive
for vax-only exemptions. Sufficiently
suggestive that I am softer on those with
conspiracy paranoias than I might otherwise
be, and suggestive enough that I want to see
that decision strongly justified. My sense is
that the powers-that-be simply want their jobs
to be easier and that's about as nefarious that
it gets, but that needs to be admitted and
justified, if it's the case. Simply keeping up
a campaign of coercion based on calling even
the vaxxed irresponsible and dangerous to
others only makes me more suspicious, not less.


--
Love

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:39:13 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <kbrbmg9ho59o5t3e5...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st says...
>>
>>The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
>>immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.
>
>Who will say that even vaccination with one
>brand does not provide the same immunity as
>vaccination with another brand.

Yes, there are differences.

>There are no absolutes here, only differences
>in what levels of risk are sufficient to
>situationally suspend the principle of
>individual liberty.
>
>Gloss and grammar around that as you will.

And unless you are licensed to practice medicine, ask your doctor.
--
Noah Sombrero

[DMB]

On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 08:29:38 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
...

> So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
> covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
> probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
> Are you civil?

Do those who choose to have greater fear of death from a virus than from dangerous motor vehicles not responsible for dealing with these personal fears?
Can they not give themselves voluntary lock down and stop expecting everyone around them to change their way of life so they can experience an ease of mind?
How energetic were your campaigning for people to get the flu shot ten, fifteen years ago?
People died from catching someone else's flu.
Were you up in arms then?

[Ned]

OK, here's a little factoid that came out on ABC's evening
news broadcast today:

62% of in-line-of-duty deaths of police officers nationally
in 2020 were from Covid.

They did not say what percent were non-vaccinated. But
WAY more cops died of Covid than being shot in the line
of duty.

Virtually all deaths from Covid currently (over 90%) are
in un-vaccinated people.

Combine that with the fact that there was essentially NO
flu last year, because of masks and distancing.

If this were polio or the Black Death, people would be
storming the vaccination centers to get a shot. What is it
about this being a type flu that makes people think they
DON'T need a vaccination, or need some crazy bat-shit
alternative like bleach, ultra-violet light, or a medicine
used to treat head lice, scabies, and river blindness,
RATHER than a god-damned shot of vaccine?

Ned

[Love]

In article <gqdcmgt4vuce111fb...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st
says...

Q: Hey doc, what levels of risk are sufficient to

situationally suspend the principle of individual

liberty?

A: Ask me a medical question please. I didn't
get into medicine because I wanted to become a
philosopher or social ethicist.


--
Love

[Love]

In article <80b704d6-0f68-4d23...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

>On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 9:19:45 PM UTC-7, DMB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 08:29:38 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> ...
>> > So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
>> > covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
>> > probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
>> > Are you civil?
>>
>> Do those who choose to have greater fear of death from a virus than from
>> dangerous motor vehicles not responsible for dealing with these personal
>> fears?
>> Can they not give themselves voluntary lock down and stop expecting everyone
>> around them to change their way of life so they can experience an ease of
>> mind?
>> How energetic were your campaigning for people to get the flu shot ten,
>> fifteen years ago?
>> People died from catching someone else's flu.
>> Were you up in arms then?
>>
>
> OK, here's a little factoid that came out on ABC's evening
>news broadcast today:

Oh, ABC. Must be true.

> 62% of in-line-of-duty deaths of police officers nationally
> in 2020 were from Covid.

In-line-of-duty is a term that matters for death
benefits to the families of responders. A
firefighter dies of a cancer that may have been
caused by smoke inhalation, and that is also
considered "in line of duty". It is not a
scientific determination that his death was
caused by on-the-job smoke inhalation.

Neither is evidence of anything other than a
generosity towards the families of responders
who otherwise might be denied a death benefit
if they couldn't _prove_ that the death was
"in line of duty".

> They did not say what percent were non-vaccinated. But
>WAY more cops died of Covid than being shot in the line
>of duty.

Which just puts the lie to the idea we have that
policing is such a super-dangerous profession
cops should be able to use maximum force and
caution to protect themselves at al times,
including preemptive use of force; eg. shooting
before being shot at.

> Virtually all deaths from Covid currently (over 90%) are
>in un-vaccinated people.

Well duh. Vaccines work.

> Combine that with the fact that there was essentially NO
>flu last year, because of masks and distancing.

Fact, eh? Are you sure that it wasn't because when
covid is discovered, all other conditions (aka
comorbidities) get lower priority in cause-of-death
reports? (Ie. that if one dies WITH covid one is
declared to have died OF covid?) Or, even more
probably, the same people who died of covid would
have been the people who died of flu, thus causing
the flu death numbers to drop merely by preemption.

Either one would be a good explanation of why flu
deaths are down, and neither requires an unwarranted
leap to the conclusion that masks and lockdowns are
what have depressed flu death numbers.

> If this were polio or the Black Death, people would be
>storming the vaccination centers to get a shot.

Sure, but it's not either of those things. Not
even close. And, polio happened in a different
era, before ABC et al popularised the suspicion
that vaccines might in fact be harmful. It was
the era of "miracle drugs". Wake up dummy.
This is the era of distrust of grand narratives.

> What is it
>about this being a type flu that makes people think they
>DON'T need a vaccination,

The fact that most people who get it don't even
get very ill, with the majority never knowing
they had it at all unless they got tested for
it. Covid is a pandemic of positive tests that
are far, far more numerous than serious
illnesses. Were polio, black death, measles,
TB, etc., ever like that? No one got serum
tested for measles. They were diagnosed by
virtue of being ill and having the symptoms.
It was concrete and confirmable by experience.
Even polio is like that. Most of us have met
someone living with the aftermath of surviving
polio, or TB. Covid feels like virtual reality,
a story told only by numbers, in comparison.
And the main numbers reported daily by media?
"Number of cases", where case means not illness
but positive test.

If people were visibly getting ill in those
numbers, yes, we might be storming the vaccine
banks AND trying out every rumoured cure.

> or need some crazy bat-shit
>alternative like bleach, ultra-violet light, or a medicine
>used to treat head lice, scabies, and river blindness,
>RATHER than a god-damned shot of vaccine?

Peeling the "we're the smart ones not the
stupid ones" self-affirming fables out of
that (eg. bleach and UV light) leaves me
with these responses:

1. Mistrust of authority is a core part of the
American psyche, baked right into the founding
mythology of the country. It's a patriotic
duty.

2. The more you TELL a person to do something,
the less that person will trust you or your
"reasons".

3. A set of anti-vax arguments finely honed
by previous anti-vaxxers who thought vaccines
caused autism. That same group gave the idea
of "alternative treatments" legitimacy.

Before that it was "alternative lifestyles",
"alternative art", "alternative families",
"alternative narratives", "alternative diets",
"alternative energy" and what have you. Now
anything bearing the "alternative"
trademark acquires some degree of legitimacy
from the logo alone.

4. After a lifetime of being told that all
medicines require 5 years or more of trials
and development before being approved of as
safe, people naturally wonder why all of a
sudden, this is no longer true, and this
makes many suspicious that corporate profits
or something equally nefarious are taking
precedence over public health. (Didn't big
fat liberal Michael Moore imply that the
Iraq war was really about money for
Halliburton and other corporations and fat
cats?)

It's as easy as ABC to understand, really,
if understanding is actually your goal.

--
Love

[Love]

In article <d524c61d-7716-4952...@googlegroups.com>,
sgma...@gmail.com says...

Approved. A+


--
Love

[Wilson]

Yes. I agree it's probably simply easier to document someone got the
vax compared to whether or not someone has the right antibodies.

Probably that's it.

Most likely.

[Wilson]

On 10/12/2021 8:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:00:09 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2021 4:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>
>>> The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
>>> immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.
>>
>> Not the same, but probably even better:

>> https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resistance/index.html
>
> Notice the language:
>
> COVID-19 survivors may possess wide-ranging resistance to the disease
>
> may=might in common parlance. The title of the paper is tentative
> because this one result is not in itself conclusive, as with the rest
> below. The issue is not settled until scientists decide it is. Until
> then, it is best to do what you can to protect you fellow humans. You
> can consider the issue settled when local health agencies start
> accepting proof of previous infection as equal to vaccination.

But you said "the evidence does not show".

And yet there is evidence. And it does show.

[Wilson]

It's not a small difference either.

[Noah Sombrero]

True, wrong question. Ask your doctor whether recovering from covid
provides protection against covid equivalent to the shot. With that
information, you should be able to decide for yourself. It is true
that bias caused by politicizing the issue might cause you to make the
wrong choice, but in that case an ethicist wouldn't help either.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:19:44 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 08:29:38 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>...
>> So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
>> covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
>> probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
>> Are you civil?
>
>
>Do those who choose to have greater fear of death from a virus than from dangerous motor >vehicles not responsible for dealing with these personal fears?

There being no vaccine currently against dangerous motor vehicles,
perhaps it is not a matter of greater fear.

>Can they not give themselves voluntary lock down and stop expecting everyone around them to >change their way of life so they can experience an ease of mind?

It is not about one person's ease of mind.

>How energetic were your campaigning for people to get the flu shot ten, fifteen years ago?
>People died from catching someone else's flu.
>Were you up in arms then?

Were people resisting vaccinations then, more than 15 years ago, I
suspect? Vaccine resistance is a recent phenom. In times past people
were glad to be rid of the high probability of polio, whooping cough,
measles, diphtheria, etc. Measles, for instance, has been making a
come back in Canada recently, and sure enough, people have been
resisting that shot too. For my part, I do have a hard time
understanding why a person would not want to be free of the risk of
measles for themselves and for their children.

It might simply be that they don't remember the old days, were not
here at that time. Or it might simply be a refusal to believe
whatever government says, as love suggests.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

You mean they wonder that after firstly yearning, crying out for a
vaccine right now. Even so, they did not get it nearly as quickly as
they wished.

I suspect the resisters now are not the same people who yearned then.

The constant flow of new vaccine information about effectiveness in
certain situations, contraindications in certain situations, relative
effectiveness of various vaccines should reassure us that the testing
does continue in spite of approval for emergency use. It could well
be 5 years or more before humans really understand the effects of the
covid vaccine, as essential as it is right now.

>(Didn't big
>fat liberal Michael Moore imply that the
>Iraq war was really about money for
>Halliburton and other corporations and fat
>cats?)

He did. A situation, as credible as it is, has nothing to do with
covid vaccine. And let us not tar Mike with the vaccine hesitancy
brush.

Which does not mean that corp profits are not an issue. They could
well have something to do with why most nations outside of euna have
extremely low vaccination rates, and it isn't a matter of hesitancy.

A blip on canadian tv a while back revealed that canada pays about $30
a dose. 5 billion people left to vaccinate? Who is going to pay for
that?

Joe did ask the vaccine providers to release the vaccine to public
domain so a whole lot more providers can get to work on providing. As
was done for the polio vaccine, for instance. No deal, say the
providers. The polio vaccine was the intellectual property of one
very kindly person. So the chances of him releasing it were a lot
greater.

>It's as easy as ABC to understand, really,
>if understanding is actually your goal.
--

Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

The person who wrote the article said that it "might show". This in
acknowledgement that whether it "does show" is not his call to make.

Which tells us that it also is not your call to make, not for yourself
or anybody else.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> In article <80b704d6-0f68-4d23...@googlegroups.com>,
> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 9:19:45 PM UTC-7, DMB wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 08:29:38 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > So wilson, people not like you claim they have the right to not get
> >> > covid *at all* from you or anybody else within the limits of
> >> > probabilities. Do you give yourself the right to dismiss their right?
> >> > Are you civil?
> >>
> >> Do those who choose to have greater fear of death from a virus than from
> >> dangerous motor vehicles not responsible for dealing with these personal
> >> fears?
> >> Can they not give themselves voluntary lock down and stop expecting everyone
> >> around them to change their way of life so they can experience an ease of
> >> mind?
> >> How energetic were your campaigning for people to get the flu shot ten,
> >> fifteen years ago?
> >> People died from catching someone else's flu.
> >> Were you up in arms then?
> >>
> >
> > OK, here's a little factoid that came out on ABC's evening
> >news broadcast today:
>
> Oh, ABC. Must be true.
>

Look it up. Or find any reputable source that has
proven it is false.

> > 62% of in-line-of-duty deaths of police officers nationally
> > in 2020 were from Covid.
>
> In-line-of-duty is a term that matters for death
> benefits to the families of responders. A
> firefighter dies of a cancer that may have been
> caused by smoke inhalation, and that is also
> considered "in line of duty". It is not a
> scientific determination that his death was
> caused by on-the-job smoke inhalation.
>
> Neither is evidence of anything other than a
> generosity towards the families of responders
> who otherwise might be denied a death benefit
> if they couldn't _prove_ that the death was
> "in line of duty".
>

What the fuck are you saying? That they're faking
the 62% statistic? You sound like fucking Wilson.

> > They did not say what percent were non-vaccinated. But
> >WAY more cops died of Covid than being shot in the line
> >of duty.
>
> Which just puts the lie to the idea we have that
> policing is such a super-dangerous profession
> cops should be able to use maximum force and
> caution to protect themselves at al times,
> including preemptive use of force; eg. shooting
> before being shot at.
>
> > Virtually all deaths from Covid currently (over 90%) are
> >in un-vaccinated people.
>
> Well duh. Vaccines work.
>

Thank you. We should probably just stop talking here.

> > Combine that with the fact that there was essentially NO
> >flu last year, because of masks and distancing.
>
> Fact, eh? Are you sure that it wasn't because when
> covid is discovered, all other conditions (aka
> comorbidities) get lower priority in cause-of-death
> reports? (Ie. that if one dies WITH covid one is
> declared to have died OF covid?) Or, even more
> probably, the same people who died of covid would
> have been the people who died of flu, thus causing
> the flu death numbers to drop merely by preemption.
> Either one would be a good explanation of why flu
> deaths are down, and neither requires an unwarranted
> leap to the conclusion that masks and lockdowns are
> what have depressed flu death numbers.
>

Prove it. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by all the doctors,
and nurses, and hospitals to make Covid more important
than it really is and give money to the drug companies??
You REALLY should stop talking to Wilson.

> > If this were polio or the Black Death, people would be
> >storming the vaccination centers to get a shot.
>
> Sure, but it's not either of those things. Not
> even close. And, polio happened in a different
> era, before ABC et al popularised the suspicion
> that vaccines might in fact be harmful. It was
> the era of "miracle drugs". Wake up dummy.
> This is the era of distrust of grand narratives.
>
> > What is it

> >about this being a type of flu that makes people think they

> >DON'T need a vaccination,
>
> The fact that most people who get it don't even
> get very ill, with the majority never knowing
> they had it at all unless they got tested for
> it. Covid is a pandemic of positive tests that
> are far, far more numerous than serious
> illnesses. Were polio, black death, measles,
> TB, etc., ever like that? No one got serum
> tested for measles. They were diagnosed by
> virtue of being ill and having the symptoms.
> It was concrete and confirmable by experience.
> Even polio is like that. Most of us have met
> someone living with the aftermath of surviving
> polio, or TB. Covid feels like virtual reality,
> a story told only by numbers, in comparison.
> And the main numbers reported daily by media?
> "Number of cases", where case means not illness
> but positive test.
>

Covid has about the same morbidity as the Spanish
flu of 1918. And, as of today - 737,771 dead in the U.S. -
we are about 36% of the way toward having the same
percentage of our population die of it as in the Spanish
flu.

Actually, I agree with most of that. (As unprovable
as most of it is.) And I will add one more unprovable of
my own for you: If it weren't for all those assholes NOT
getting a god-damned vaccine shot when they came
out and were available, there would NOT have been
a fertile ground of unvaccinated people for this delta
variant to infect, and cause this vicious 5th wave of
the disease.

Ned

[Love]

In article <sk6imu$co8$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

>On 10/12/2021 9:09 PM, Love wrote:
>> In article <sk4t0q$4v7$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...
>>> On 10/12/2021 4:22 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The evidence does not show that being recovered provides the same
>>>> immunity as the vaccine. Ask your doctor.
>>>
>>> Not the same, but probably even better:
>>>
>>> https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1605
>>>
>>> T and B cells have a central role in fighting off infections and,
>>> crucially, in establishing long term immunity. Some T and B cells act as
>>> memory cells, persisting for years or decades, primed and ready to
>>> reignite a broader immune response should their target pathogen arrive

>>> in the body again. It?s these cells that make truly long term immunity

>>> possible.
>>>
>>> A study published in February in Science assessed the proliferation of
>>> antibodies as well as T and B cells in 188 people who had had covid-19.7
>>> Although antibody titres fell, memory T and B cells were present up to
>>> eight months after infection. Another study in a comparably sized cohort
>>> reported similar results in a preprint posted to MedRxiv on 27 April.8
>>>
>>> Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at
>>> the University of California San Francisco, says we have evidence that T
>>> and B cells can confer lifelong protection against certain diseases
>>> similar to covid-19. A well known Nature paper from 2008 found that 32
>>> people born in 1915 or earlier still retained some level of immunity

>>> against the 1918 flu strain, 90 years hence.9 ?That is really
>>> profound,?

>>> she says.
>>>
>>> A paper published in July 2020 in Nature found that 23 patients who had
>>> recovered from severe acute respiratory syndrome still possessed CD4 and
>>> CD8 T cells, 17 years after infection with SARS-CoV-1 in the 2003

>>> epidemic.10 What?s more, some of those cells showed cross reactivity

>>> against SARS-CoV-2, despite the participants reporting no history of
>>> having covid-19.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/covid_survivors_resistance/index.html
>>>
>>> Recovered COVID-19 patients retain broad and effective longer-term
>>> immunity to the disease, suggests a recent Emory University study, which
>>> is the most comprehensive of its kind so far. The findings have
>>> implications for expanding understanding about human immune memory as
>>> well as future vaccine development for coronaviruses.
>>>
>>> The longitudinal study, published recently on Cell Reports Medicine,
>>> looked at 254 patients with mostly mild to moderate symptoms of
>>> SARS-CoV-2 infection over a period for more than eight months (250 days)
>>> and found that their immune response to the virus remained durable and
>>> strong.
>>>
>>> Emory Vaccine Center director Rafi Ahmed, PhD, and a lead author on the
>>> paper, says the findings are reassuring, especially given early reports
>>> during the pandemic that protective neutralizing antibodies did not last
>>> in COVID-19 patients.
>>>

>>> ?The study serves as a framework to define and predict long-lived

>>> immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection. We also saw indications

>>> in this phase that natural immunity could continue to persist,? Ahmed

>>> says. The research team will continue to evaluate this cohort over the
>>> next few years.
>>>
>>> Researchers found that not only did the immune response increase with
>>> disease severity, but also with each decade of age regardless of disease
>>> severity, suggesting that there are additional unknown factors
>>> influencing age-related differences in COVID-19 responses.
>>>
>>> In following the patients for months, researchers got a more nuanced
>>> view of how the immune system responds to COVID-19 infection. The

>>> picture that emerges indicates that the body?s defense shield not only

>>> produces an array of neutralizing antibodies but activates certain T and
>>> B cells to establish immune memory, offering more sustained defenses
>>> against reinfection.
>>>

>>> ?We saw that antibody responses, especially IgG antibodies, were not

>>> only durable in the vast majority of patients but decayed at a slower
>>> rate than previously estimated, which suggests that patients are
>>> generating longer-lived plasma cells that can neutralize the SARS-CoV-2

>>> spike protein.?

>>>
>>> Ahmed says investigators were surprised to see that convalescent
>>> participants also displayed increased immunity against common human
>>> coronaviruses as well as SARS-CoV-1, a close relative of the current
>>> coronavirus. The study suggests that patients who survived COVID-19 are
>>> likely to also possess protective immunity even against some SARS-CoV-2
>>> variants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30005-sars-cov-2-immune-response-improves-
lon
>>> g-term-protection/
>>>
>>> The findings, published in Nature, provide the strongest evidence yet

>>> that the immune system ?remembers? the virus and, remarkably, continues

>>> to improve the quality of antibodies even after the infection has waned.
>>> Antibodies produced months after the infection showed increased ability
>>> to block SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mutated versions such as the South
>>> African variant.
>>>
>>> The researchers found that these improved antibodies are produced by
>>> immune cells that have kept evolving, apparently due to a continued
>>> exposure to the remnants of the virus hidden in the gut tissue.
>>>
>>> Based on these findings, researchers suspect that when the recovered
>>> patient next encounters the virus, the response would be both faster and
>>> more effective, preventing re-infection.
>>>

>>> ?This is really exciting news. The type of immune response we see here

>>> could potentially provide protection for quite some time, by enabling
>>> the body to mount a rapid and effective response to the virus upon

>>> re-exposure,? says Michel C. Nussenzweig, the Zanvil A. Cohn and Ralph

>>> M. Steinman Professor and head of the Laboratory of Molecular
>>> Immunology, whose team has been tracking and characterizing antibody
>>> response in Covid-19 patients since the early days of the pandemic in
>>> New York.
>>>
>>> Long-lasting memory
>>>
>>> Antibodies, which the body creates in response to infection, linger in
>>> the blood plasma for several weeks or months, but their levels
>>> significantly drop with time. The immune system has a more efficient way
>>> of dealing with pathogens: instead of producing antibodies all the time,
>>> it creates memory B cells that recognize the pathogen, and can quickly
>>> unleash a new round of antibodies when they encounter it a second time.
>>>
>>> But how well this memory works depends on the pathogen. To understand
>>> the case with SARS-CoV-2, Nussenzweig and his colleagues studied the
>>> antibody responses of 87 individuals at two timepoints: one month after
>>> infection, and then again six months later. As expected, they found that
>>> although antibodies were still detectable by the six-month point, their
>>> numbers had markedly decreased. Lab experiments showed that the ability

>>> of the participants? plasma samples to neutralize the virus was reduced
>>> by five-fold.
>>>
>>> In contrast, the patients? memory B cells, specifically those that

>>> produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, did not decline in number, and

>>> even slightly increased in some cases. ?The overall numbers of memory B
>>> cells that produced antibodies attacking the Achilles? heel of the
>>> virus, known as the receptor-binding domain, stayed the same,? says
>>> Christian Gaebler, a physician and immunologist in Nussenzweig?s lab.
>>> ?That?s good news because those are the ones that you need if you
>>> encounter the virus again.?

>>>
>>> Viral stowaways
>>>
>>> A closer look at the memory B cells revealed something surprising: these
>>> cells had gone through numerous rounds of mutation even after the
>>> infection resolved, and as a result the antibodies they produced were
>>> much more effective than the originals. Subsequent lab experiments
>>> showed this new set of antibodies were better able to latch on tightly
>>> to the virus and could recognize even mutated versions of it.
>>>

>>> ?We were surprised to see the memory B cells had kept evolving during
>>> this time,? Nussenzweig says. ?That often happens in chronic
>>> infections,
>>> like HIV or herpes, where the virus lingers in the body. But we weren?t

>>> expecting to see it with SARS-CoV-2, which is thought to leave the body

>>> after infection has resolved.?

>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> Naturally acquired immunity should be equal to
>> being vaxxed with regards to exemption from
>> pandemic restrictions, as far as I am concerned.
>> In fact, that it is not so-regarded is
>> suggestive to me that there is another motive
>> for vax-only exemptions. Sufficiently
>> suggestive that I am softer on those with
>> conspiracy paranoias than I might otherwise
>> be, and suggestive enough that I want to see
>> that decision strongly justified. My sense is
>> that the powers-that-be simply want their jobs
>> to be easier and that's about as nefarious that
>> it gets, but that needs to be admitted and
>> justified, if it's the case. Simply keeping up
>> a campaign of coercion based on calling even
>> the vaxxed irresponsible and dangerous to
>> others only makes me more suspicious, not less.
>
>
>Yes. I agree it's probably simply easier to document someone got the
>vax compared to whether or not someone has the right antibodies.
>
>Probably that's it.
>
>Most likely.

Also, they probably don't expect it to last long
enough to invest too much in a system that will
be moot in a year or two.

Odds are that's it.


--
Love

[DMB]

On Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 08:04:06 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:
...

> >How energetic were your campaigning for people to get the flu shot ten, fifteen years ago?
> >People died from catching someone else's flu.
> >Were you up in arms then?

> Were people resisting vaccinations then, more than 15 years ago, I
> suspect? Vaccine resistance is a recent phenom.

It looks like there was an internet wipe because I can't find the Donahue show that dealt with the issue of vaccine hesitancy in the early 80's.
[I watched it when it was still available]

[Noah Sombrero]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:25:15 -0700 (PDT), DMB <sgma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Could be. 40 years is still recent to me. In any case, I have a long
history of ignoring news. Since I came to canada, the quality of news
available here, while still not as good as I would like, has
encouraged me to pay more attention. It seems to me that the
resistance phenom has not been discussed here much more than the past
5 years. But I do admit that my memory has become creaky.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Once again you cherry-picked one article out of three. Evidence was
provided. It showed.

You are duplicitous.

>
> Which tells us that it also is not your call to make, not for yourself
> or anybody else.

Yes it is my call. I am my own person, neither you nor anyone else owns
me.

[Noah Sombrero]

It was representative. And indicative. Enough for me. Evidence was
provided. But it is not conclusive until those whose call it is have
concluded. One study proves nothing. Three studies prove nothing.

I'm remembering in a certain work situation where a respected leader
was asked his opinion about a certain policy matter, about which he
obviously did have an opinion. He grimaced, shook his head and said,
not my call. There is a reason why people respect such things, beyond
simple hierarchy.

>>
>> Which tells us that it also is not your call to make, not for yourself
>> or anybody else.
>
>Yes it is my call. I am my own person, neither you nor anyone else owns
>me.

It isn't a matter of owning. It is a matter of mutual consideration.
I don't infect you, and you don't infect me. To the best of our
capabilities, given probabilities.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

On 10/13/2021 11:09 AM, Ned wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-7, Love wrote:
>> In article <80b704d6-0f68-4d23...@googlegroups.com>,
>> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>

There's been scientific evidence presented that the spreading of Delta
variant was caused by the design of the vaccination.

The vax does not include the entire virus spike protein. It only
includes a small part of the spike proteins present on the virus. The
virus mutated so that specific part was no longer present. That
mutation allowed the virus to replicate in people with the vaccine.

[Noah Sombrero]

The other evidence is that vaccination works not quite as well with
delta, but it does work well enough. You get to choose what you
believe.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Who's call is it, Noah?

[Noah Sombrero]

Somebody who can't be trusted, I'm sure.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Who is "those whose call it is", Noah?

[Noah Sombrero]

The other tribe.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Kentucky Jelly Buddha]

You are even smarter than me!

--
Kentucky Jelly Buddha
Making Leek Insertion Easy Since 1904
Van Horn and Sawtell Co. of New York City

[Love]

In article <a71d273a-02d4-43ec...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

>> >
>> > OK, here's a little factoid that came out on ABC's evening
>> >news broadcast today:
>>
>> Oh, ABC. Must be true.
>>
>
> Look it up. Or find any reputable source that has
>proven it is false.
>
>> > 62% of in-line-of-duty deaths of police officers nationally
>> > in 2020 were from Covid.
>>
>> In-line-of-duty is a term that matters for death
>> benefits to the families of responders. A
>> firefighter dies of a cancer that may have been
>> caused by smoke inhalation, and that is also
>> considered "in line of duty". It is not a
>> scientific determination that his death was
>> caused by on-the-job smoke inhalation.
>>
>> Neither is evidence of anything other than a
>> generosity towards the families of responders
>> who otherwise might be denied a death benefit
>> if they couldn't _prove_ that the death was
>> "in line of duty".
>>
>
> What the fuck are you saying? That they're faking
>the 62% statistic? You sound like fucking Wilson.

Twat.

I am saying that there is an incentive to
generously interpret cause of death as
"in line of duty", and that this will
inflate the numbers. No faking is
necessary. It just means that in ranking
to other "in line of duty" deaths, Covid
is bound to pop to the top, since it is
not like gunshot wounds or automobile
deaths (which is the traditional leader
compared to all other causes). Unlike
gunshots or car wrecks, it's almost
impossible to say WHERE an officer caught
the covid, so MOST will be interpreted as

"in line of duty".

So what numbers are we actually talking about?
Here are some...

https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-data/causes-of-law-
enforcement-deaths/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_p
olice_officers

"Covid-19 related deaths" in 2020: 182
Number of police officers in the USA: 687,000
This gives an "inline of duty" figure of 264/million.
The overall US rate is 2232/million.

I am forced to conclude that you've been
punked by television network (ABC)
sensationalism.

>> > Combine that with the fact that there was essentially NO
>> >flu last year, because of masks and distancing.
>>
>> Fact, eh? Are you sure that it wasn't because when
>> covid is discovered, all other conditions (aka
>> comorbidities) get lower priority in cause-of-death
>> reports? (Ie. that if one dies WITH covid one is
>> declared to have died OF covid?) Or, even more
>> probably, the same people who died of covid would
>> have been the people who died of flu, thus causing
>> the flu death numbers to drop merely by preemption.
>> Either one would be a good explanation of why flu
>> deaths are down, and neither requires an unwarranted
>> leap to the conclusion that masks and lockdowns are
>> what have depressed flu death numbers.
>>
>
> Prove it. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by all the doctors,
>and nurses, and hospitals to make Covid more important
>than it really is and give money to the drug companies??
>You REALLY should stop talking to Wilson.

What do you imagine you are accomplishing by
using Wilson that way? Twice in one post even?

I posted an example of covid deaths numbers
inflation just yesterday. Caught dead to
rights, admitted and reported in major media.

Lastly, I never mentioned any conspiracy.
Why do you?

> Covid has about the same morbidity as the Spanish
>flu of 1918. And, as of today - 737,771 dead in the U.S. -
>we are about 36% of the way toward having the same
>percentage of our population die of it as in the Spanish
>flu.

No comparison worth noting except that it
sounds sensational to say "almost as bad as the
1918 Flu". In 1918 most of the people who are
dying today of Covid would have already been
dead of other causes. The 1918 flu killed young
adults more than old people.

> Actually, I agree with most of that. (As unprovable
>as most of it is.) And I will add one more unprovable of
>my own for you: If it weren't for all those assholes NOT
>getting a god-damned vaccine shot when they came

I think you just enjoy calling people
assholes.

>out and were available, there would NOT have been
>a fertile ground of unvaccinated people for this delta
>variant to infect, and cause this vicious 5th wave of
>the disease.

Oh "Delta variant!" Sigh.


--
Love

[Ned]

Covid: Number one killer of Americans 35-54 last month...
https://theweek.com/coronavirus/1006016/covid-19-was-the-no-1-killer-of-americans-aged-35-to-54-last-month-and-no-2

But I'm sure it's all just media spin and "covid deaths
numbers inflation".

Ned

[Wilson]

Just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died of Covid-19 in September were
unvaccinated, the Vermont Department of Heath said Wednesday.

https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/09/30/76-of-september-covid-19-deaths-are-vaxxed-breakthroughs/

[Noah Sombrero]

That's the thing about probabilities. Most results lie near the
center of the curve. And there will always be outliers at both ends.
This gives a bell shaped curve. Outliers prove nothing. Consider
hundreds of tests including all possible results. See where the
center is where most results fall, and consider your chances of being
an outlier.

Of course I don't describe it well.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 19:08:45 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>
wrote:

Vermont's report is one test out of the hundreds.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <1e214649-9171-426b...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Not ALL doofus, just enough to bring it all
into very serious question. Enough to stop
simply believing whatever the media tells
you. Enough to lose confidence in the
narrative.

You think that kid whose cancer death was
re-labelled as a covid death was an anomally?
The authorities even admitted that it was
happening with other death reports.

Now that you KNOW deaths inflation is
happening, why do you still believe that the
numbers the media gives you are real? I mean,
now that you KNOW it's true, wouldn't it be
just irrational to keep hammering on points
based on the ability of the numbers to make
those points compelling?


--
Love

[Noah Sombrero]

Could be. I don't see evidence that the difference was significant or
that there was deliberate intent to deceive with inflated numbers.

>Now that you KNOW deaths inflation is
>happening, why do you still believe that the
>numbers the media gives you are real? I mean,
>now that you KNOW it's true, wouldn't it be
>just irrational to keep hammering on points
>based on the ability of the numbers to make
>those points compelling?
--

Noah Sombrero

[DMB]

On Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 20:57:27 UTC-6, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> >You think that kid whose cancer death was
> >re-labelled as a covid death was an anomally?
> >The authorities even admitted that it was
> >happening with other death reports.

> Could be. I don't see [should be: "I choose not to see"] evidence that the difference was significant or

> that there was deliberate intent to deceive with inflated numbers.

> --
> Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <1e214649-9171-426b...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

>>https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-data/causes-of-
law-
>> enforcement-deaths/
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of
_
>>p

Oh christ, now it's the "number one killer".
Duhn duhn duhn, call American's Most Wanted!

> But I'm sure it's all just media spin and "covid deaths
>numbers inflation".

Not "all" Mr. Crazy Exaggeration.

So that kid whose death of cancer was relabelled
death by covid was just an anomally, even though
the authorities were made to admit that it
happens with some frequency?

The salient question here now is "now that you
KNOW that numbers inflation is occurring, why
do you continue to trust them?" I mean, shit
man, you now KNOW better.


--
Love

[Love]

In article <9hopmgp367p22lfqj...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st
says...

Except the authorities didn't say it was an
error.

> I don't see evidence that the difference was significant or
>that there was deliberate intent to deceive with inflated numbers.

Oh now we need evidence that the 3 rotten
peaches at the top of the box are NOT
anomallies before we are justified in
being suspicious of the entire box of
peaches?

Sorry, store policy doesn't allow us to
open the box and inspect every peach.
We have to make decisions on less than
perfect samples, or we have to trust
the store.

Any store I trust wouldn't allow any
rotten peaches in their boxes.

What are the odds that the 3 rotten
peaches in that batch just all happened
to land at the top of the box?

--
Love

[Ned]

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 7:39:16 PM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> In article <1e214649-9171-426b...@googlegroups.com>,
> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

> >
> > Covid: Number one killer of Americans 35-54 last month...
https://theweek.com/coronavirus/1006016/covid-19-was-the-no-1-killer-of-americans-aged-35-to-54-last-month-and-no-2
> >
> > But I'm sure it's all just media spin and "covid deaths
> >numbers inflation".
>
> Not ALL doofus, just enough to bring it all
> into very serious question. Enough to stop
> simply believing whatever the media tells
> you. Enough to lose confidence in the
> narrative.
>
> You think that kid whose cancer death was
> re-labelled as a covid death was an anomally?
> The authorities even admitted that it was
> happening with other death reports.
>
> Now that you KNOW deaths inflation is
> happening, why do you still believe that the
> numbers the media gives you are real? I mean,
> now that you KNOW it's true, wouldn't it be
> just irrational to keep hammering on points
> based on the ability of the numbers to make
> those points compelling?
> --
> Love
>

Because of what it would take to falsify (significantly)
numbers on the scale of Covid deaths. How many
doctors, nurses and hospitals would have to be in
league with each other, AND suppress all the other
doctors, nurses, and hospitals who were on to what
they were doing, to make that charade work?

I know you don't want to hear this, and you don't
want to address analogies to the spurious claim that
the election was 'stolen', but the analogy is EXACTLY
the same. All of those vote recounts (and the initial
vote) and all the court cases and all the Supreme Court
challenges had people from both parties overseeing them,
ready to jump on any irregularities, and nothing was
found to significantly change the 7 million more votes
that Biden got than Trump.

You find some cancer cases that have been
classified as covid deaths, and you think this negates
745,000 reported U.S. deaths (and 5 million globally)??

And this cabal has carried on this deception for over
a year and a half?

That's just plain nuts. Do you know how many small
businesses have folded and lost livelihoods (and homes
and families) because of masks and distancing and lock
downs? And how many of those people have relatives
who are doctors, nurses, and work in hospitals? And
none of those medical insiders blew the whistle on the
great deception of covid deaths that destroyed their
relatives' livelihoods?

The ONLY thing you said that made sense was your
(sarcastic) comment about...
---

Oh now we need evidence that the 3 rotten
peaches at the top of the box are NOT
anomallies before we are justified in
being suspicious of the entire box of
peaches?
Sorry, store policy doesn't allow us to
open the box and inspect every peach.
We have to make decisions on less than
perfect samples, or we have to trust
the store.

---

I would actually strongly support looking deeper
into the barrel than the 3 rotten apples on top.

And it would NOT, imo, cost an exorbitant amount
of money. I would LOVE to know the immunity rate
in the general population. And I don't think it would
require a special program of making people come to
blood centers to give samples.

Every day in this country there are probably 10,000
medical procedures that involve blood leaving the body.
This is everything from cosmetic surgery to emergency
surgery to fatal trauma, in populations of all ages and
medical condition.

And all that blood gets flushed. (Or burned, or land-
filled or whatever they do with it.) Why not just give it
a covid anti-body test?

I'll do you one better. Mary gives blood. (Even more
generously she gives platelets.) And EVERY time
anyone gives blood, they first take a sample and test
it for iron level and COVID! And if you test positive for
covid (or low iron level), they don't take your blood.

In fact, blood donations increased dramatically during
the epidemic because it's a free way to get a covid test.

All of that's in place and functioning. And they've
already got the blood samples. Why not just provide
blood centers with anti-body testing kits (or a mailer
to send the sample to the CDC), noting the donor's
age, sex, etc.?

It would certainly be a nice thing to have in place for
when the next epidemic comes around.

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:27:17 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <9hopmgp367p22lfqj...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st
>says...
>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 22:39:14 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>You think that kid whose cancer death was
>>>re-labelled as a covid death was an anomally?
>>>The authorities even admitted that it was
>>>happening with other death reports.
>>
>>Could be.
>
>Except the authorities didn't say it was an
>error.

I guess I missed that. What did they say it was? How did you find
out about this issue then?

>> I don't see evidence that the difference was significant or
>>that there was deliberate intent to deceive with inflated numbers.
>
>Oh now we need evidence that the 3 rotten
>peaches at the top of the box are NOT
>anomallies before we are justified in
>being suspicious of the entire box of
>peaches?
>
>Sorry, store policy doesn't allow us to
>open the box and inspect every peach.
>We have to make decisions on less than
>perfect samples, or we have to trust
>the store.
>
>Any store I trust wouldn't allow any
>rotten peaches in their boxes.

You haven't brought fruit/vegetables home and found that some of them
were bad? And if you did, did you then start shopping elsewhere? Or
did you, perhaps, think that such an event could happen at most
stores?

>What are the odds that the 3 rotten
>peaches in that batch just all happened
>to land at the top of the box?

That is something to think about. How often do you suppose somebody
who is about to die anyway gets covid and the med staff notice that,
even test for it?

And in such a case, how sure can you be that the other cause of death
was the culprit and not covid? In the case of cancer, cancer
depresses immune response. So is it likely that sometimes, it might
be both together that caused a particular death?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <ffe2c38c-480f-4f95...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

You can stop right there. I am not saying
that there is a campaign of falsification
happening. I agree that such a thing is
untenable. I also believe that Americans
have walked on the moon, and that the twin
towers were brought down by jets being
flown into them.

By making the assumption that I am engaging in
conspiracy theories, you not only insult me to
no purpose, you are repeating a falsehood to
yourself. Repeat one long enough and you may
believe it.

> You find some cancer cases that have been
>classified as covid deaths, and you think this negates
>745,000 reported U.S. deaths (and 5 million globally)??

Did I ever say "negates"? You are
overusing exaggeration for a win, Ned.

You're also minimising. I didn't "find some".
What I showed you was the reporting system
_routinely_ causing reports of people who
died while also infected with covid to be
reported AS IF they were reports of people
whose deaths were _caused_ by covid. There
really is no way for me to tell right now
what percentage of the numbers we now bandy
about as "covid deaths" could in fact be in
that category. Unless you have a good
reason to believe otherwise, you don't have
a way to do that either. I'd love to hear
it if there was one. All ears.

We do know that most people who die of all
causes, die in care settings. We also know
that care settings like hospitals and
nursing homes, are the riskiest locations
infection-wise.

So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to
assume that maybe half of all "covid deaths"
are really a recording phenomenon leading to
the public being given inflated numbers. We
KNOW that is happening. We just don't know
the scale, but since it is routine, it is
definitely not tenable to explain it away
as just a few errors. Whatever it is, it's
not just a few bugs; it's a feature.

And this matters because the subject of what
the proper policy responses should be are
all matters of degree.

>And this cabal has carried on this deception for over
>a year and a half?

Your Trump-induced PTSD is of no matter here.
It makes you sound like a protestant in
Ireland who blames the catholics for
everything he doesn't like, from trains
running late to milk turning sour.

> The ONLY thing you said that made sense was your
>(sarcastic) comment about...

That wasn't sarcasm. It was analogy.
And the analogy precludes the silly
response you made that "I would actually

strongly support looking deeper into the
barrel than the 3 rotten apples on top".

The store won't let you dig deeper. You
can't dig deeper. And neither can I.
We both need to trust the fruit packer
to live up to a certain standard of
truthfulness. Here the fruit represents
the information we are being given.

I agree with you that it would not cost
much money for us to be given better
and more trustable information. Now
maybe here you will be more open to the
idea that trust is in fact a reasonable
issue and not exclusively the domain of
some Trump/conservative cabal of
conspiracy makers.

I know that if I trusted what I was being
told more, rather than being called a
conspiracy nut in the thrall of Trump's
lackeys, I would also be more trusting of
the policies being undertaken to fight
the covids. But today, express doubt
and concern and damn, stay away from
anywhere that has poles that a mob might
tie you to, while the magistrate declares
that you are in league with the devil
(Trump). That drives me into the arms of
others who have the same doubts about
what they are being told. Even if their
explanations are paranoid and delusional
compared to mine, I know that within that
community at least, discoveries of sources
of inaccuracy are not minimised (unlike
the hospital spokesperson in the
cancer/covid case I reported on). They
are highlighted instead. In that sense
at least, it is more rational to trust
the nuts than the authorities.

> All of that's in place and functioning. And they've
>already got the blood samples. Why not just provide
>blood centers with anti-body testing kits (or a mailer
>to send the sample to the CDC), noting the donor's
>age, sex, etc.?
>
> It would certainly be a nice thing to have in place for
>when the next epidemic comes around.

It would.

What would also be a nice thing is media
and authorities who are careful about
communicating truthfully, not merely
blithely spouting numbers that have the
effect they hope they will have.


--
Love

[Ned]

You haven't proven anything with this. Most importantly,
you haven't proven your point.

But let's get specific. Answer this question: Did Colin Powell
die of "complications from Covid"?

Because that's how it's being reported in the news. Should
he be recorded as a "Covid death"?

He had a prostate cancer diagnosis in 2003, and was
diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 2019.

So did he die of Covid, and should he be recorded as a
covid death? Because this appears to be an example of
one of the things you've been harping about in the
"mis-recording" and "inflation" of covid death totals.

In my opinion, yes, Colin Powell died of covid. Without
the epidemic he might have died of cancer next week,
but with it, the epidemic was the cause of his death.

And your problem here is you can pull the same trick
on the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 (or ANY epidemic).

It is currently estimated that 675,000 Americans died
of the Spanish flu in 1918-1920. How many of those deaths
do you want to throw out the window as "inflation" and
"mis-reporting" of numbers?

You know, you lost your bet with Sandy by a HUGE
margin. (A bet which I must admit I would also have taken).

You would even have lost it if you had taken the first
number that Sandy pulled out of his ear, which was 500,000.
And when he reduced it to 250,000 you took the bet.

Your problem is you DON'T KNOW. But for some reason
you want to change the way the medical profession is
estimating deaths from epidemics. Why? What will it
get you, other than going down a rabbit hole that you
can't get out of.

Your proposal that "half of all covid deaths are really a
recording phenomenon" is ridiculous. Go back to my question
about all the relatives of small business owners whose
livelihoods were destroyed by lockdowns and distancing,
relatives who are doctors, nurses and work in hospitals
and see these mis-reported covid deaths (one out of two
according to you) every day, and saw their relatives'
livelihoods destroyed - Why weren't thousands or tens
of thousands of these professionals screaming about the
mis-reporting of 'inflated' numbers?

I'm not done, but I'm going to post this now, and make
a separate post about your accusations of "Trump-induced
PTSD".

Ned

[Ned]

Part Deux:

Now we're going to talk about your accusations of
"Trump-induced PTSD".

You know, Colin Powell - who died of Covid, by the way -
had some interesting things to say about Trump.

Powell was a four-star general and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our current Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs also had some pointed things to say about Trump,
and once apologized to the entire fucking country for
supporting Trump in his photo-op at the church, with the
bible...
https://i.postimg.cc/mr6Wdr1w/PresidentialSeal_Bible.jpg

You can also find this picture in the WokeWisdom app,
under a (slightly) hidden link.

Anyway, Powell joined three other former chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs on June 7, 2020, in publicly criticizing
Trump, his commander-in-chief. I don't know if you know
anything about armies, but this isn't done. But it WAS
done because of Trump.

Your accusations of "Trump-induced PTSD" - and I assume
you are making that accusation against me, so lets call it
MY Trump-induced PTSD - should bear some analysis.

Why would anyone, and even rational people, have
Trump-induced PTSD? Or stating it another way, at what
point would rational people understandably develop a
case of Trump-induced PTSD?

OK. Let's look at some rational people. The New England
Journal of Medicine has some rational people on it. And
for the FIRST time in its 208 year history, they "called for
a change in the leadership of the U.S. government", labeling
Trump "dangerously incompetent".

How about the people at Scientific American? For the FIRST
time in its 175-year history it endorsed a political candidate,
the one running against Trump, whom they criticized for
"dismissing science".

Are we there yet? No, no, no, we've got a long way to go
before _I_ get Trump-induced PTSD!

How about the Pope (you know, of the Catholic church)?
Well, he publicly stated that Trump "is not a Christian".
I don't think that ever happened before. Ever.

How about those cut-ups at the United Nations? Rational?
Who knows? But on Sep. 25, 2018 those clowns LAUGHED
OUT LOUD at a sitting US president (Trump) giving a speech
to them. Yet another first!

How about lawyers? Lawyers are generally rational, right?
In Feb. of 2020, more than 1,100 former prosecutors and
Justice Department officials who served in Republican and
Democratic administrations signed an open letter condemning
the president, and called on the Attorney General of the
United States to resign.

Is that ol' Trump-induced PTSD creeping up on you yet?

Well, in Jan. of 2021, the nation's 10 living Secretaries of
Defense (which is to say, ALL of them) publicly warned Donald
Trump that the U.S. military should have no role in determining
the outcome of a U.S. election, saying "Efforts to involve the
U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take
us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory."

NOW I'm getting the first twinges of Trump-induced PTSD!

What else happened in January? Oh yeah, two things.

Trump was impeached for the second time. Eh? No big!

Oh wait, yeah, on Jan. 6th, 2021, our President incited a
mob of several thousand people to march on the Capitol and
"Stop the Steal", as the Electoral College met to confirm the
2020 election results. One woman was shot dead as she
attempted to climb through a smashed window leading to the
House Chamber, and three others died of "medical emergencies".
80 arrests were made, 14 Metro police officers were injured, one
of whom subsequently died.

The damage done by that event to our republic is immeasurable.
It lingers to this day, and it will eat away like a cancer on our
democracy FOREVER.

So, where's my medal? It appears I am a survivor and living
reminder of Trump-induced PTSD.

Ned

[Wilson]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-vm9uvwxcsk898

[Captain Squeeka]

On 10/19/2021 11:45 AM, Ned wrote:
> In my opinion, yes, Colin Powell died of covid. Without
> the epidemic he might have died of cancer next week,
> but with it, the epidemic was the cause of his death.

My father CONSTANTLY would joke that everybody
died of the same thing:

"Shortage of breath"

--
Captain Squeeka
Constantly Masticating!

[Noah Sombrero]

Interesting that donnie boy thinks he needs a captcha. Also, it looks
like the page you reference has been removed. It confess that I could
not resist having a look at whatever tRump could muster as a reply to
the above indictment.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

On 10/20/2021 9:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>
>>> So, where's my medal? It appears I am a survivor and living
>>> reminder of Trump-induced PTSD.
>>>
>>> Ned
>>
>>
>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-vm9uvwxcsk898
>
> Interesting that donnie boy thinks he needs a captcha. Also, it looks
> like the page you reference has been removed. It confess that I could
> not resist having a look at whatever tRump could muster as a reply to
> the above indictment.

It's still there and no captcha for me.

If Twitter weren't a bunch of neo-commie deep state fucks, you could
read it there.

[Noah Sombrero]

Maybe it doesn't like my canadian ip address.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

Since Trump's site no longer has his screed of a post
against Colin Powell, which by the way was this...
---
Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the
United States of America
10/19/21
Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on
Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction,
be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media.
Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO,
if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans.
He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!
---

Classic! And sweet as ever.

Anyway all you get now when you click on the link is...
---
The page you requested could not be found.
The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
---

A smart move, and not characteristic of the man in question.

So, with nothing to look at, I went to 'Shop' at his Store.
Here's all the cool stuff available...
https://i.postimg.cc/SRgksXzB/Trump-Products.jpg
(hi-res) https://postimg.cc/bSSKVwgg

Note the very last picture, on the far right (ha!). It's the
"Bull-Schiff Tee" in Navy blue for $30. Look at the expression
on the guy's face (in the hi-res version).

He's one of the 3 people of color who appear in 5 of the
58 pictures.

And of those 58 products (many of which are repeated),
by far the most popular (or shall we say promoted) is the
catchy (if stale) "Don't Blame Me I Voted for Trump", which
appears on 20 of the 58. (Including a $50 door-mat with the
words "Don't Blame This Family We Voted For Trump"
emblazoned on it.)

Well, thank goodness he isn't a sore loser.

Ned

P.S. Can't decide what to buy. My $15 hat is still holding up,
with the 500-ruble and 1000-ruble notes in it, in the box
I made for the hat...
https://youtu.be/ncUDxgWJXJo
https://i.postimg.cc/Mp9ySSnK/Trump2020-Box.jpg

[Wilson]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-azv8ydcpn8898

Still there, different address.

In case it changes again it's the 2nd post dated 10/19/21.

[DMB]

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 14:42:24 UTC-6, Wilson wrote:

> > Maybe it doesn't like my canadian ip address.

> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-azv8ydcpn8898
>
> Still there, different address.

He's counting on you, Wilson.
Since the $250 box is a different color than the others and wiggles about,
I'd guess that's his suggestion for your commitment to the cause.
https://postimg.cc/tnW22Wsr

[Noah Sombrero]

This must be this one
Isn’t it terrible that a Republican Congressman from Nebraska just got
indicted for possibly telling some lies to investigators about
campaign contributions, when half of the United States Congress lied
about made up scams, and when Mark Zuckerberg, in my opinion a
criminal, is allowed to spend $500 million and therefore able to
change the course of a Presidential Election, and nothing happens to
them. Comey lied, Schiff lied, Crooked Hillary lied, McCabe lied, the
two lovers, Peter and Lisa, lied. They all lied having to do with
Russia, Russia, Russia, because they knew it was a SCAM, and they all
lied having to do with Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, because they knew it
was a SCAM—and they made up fairy tales about me knowing how badly it
would hurt the U.S.A.—and nothing happens to them. Is there no justice
in our Country?

What has that got to do with The 4 star generals, the prominent
psychs, etc who say tRump is a disaster? So, if tRump is a disaster,
what would he say? "Look at how bad they all are." Or similar.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

Oh my god they photoshopped it!

The black dude with the disgruntled look on his face,
wearing the BULL-Schiff T-shirt. Look closely...
https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/bull-schiff-tee-navy/details

And here's the other one (of three product photos) of
him, with the "Trump Save America" T-shirt...
https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/trump-save-america-tee-navy/details

Here they are next to each other...
https://i.postimg.cc/L5gYqywp/Trump-Products-Photoshop.jpg

Look at the wrinkles in the shirt. Look at his hands. Look
at his ears. And that exact same expression.

Oh wow, look at how the lettering rests on the shirt near
the wrinkles and DOESN'T bend with the wrinkles or the
curve of his chest!

HA! They had the guy wear a plain dark T-shirt and then
they photoshopped whatever they wanted on it. Sort of
their 'universal negro' for product endorsement.

Oh fuck. It's not that it's big news, but it is just SOOO
cheap and sleazy, so Trump-sleazy!

Ned

P.S. They have one other product photo with that guy, in
a white shirt, and SMILING, and giving a big 'thumbs-up'
for TRUMP-Make America Great...
https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/trump-make-america-great-again-tee-white/details

Oh no, look very closely at the wrinkled part of the shirt
right next to his thumps-up sign. Look at the T of 'Trump',
look how all the letters are perfectly squared despite the
bend of his chest on the right.

My God, Trump has done it. He has invented the

UNIVERSAL PRODUCT ENDORSEMENT NEGRO!

[Love]

In article <7fbc6fe3-0653-4fb8...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Actually, you've utterly failed to even assault
my reasoning, much less declare that I haven't
proven my point.

Being specific about Colin Powell won't help
you, but I'll go along anyway. It matters
whether or not information is given enough
context to be useful, too, but at every turn
there has been a display of counter-reporting
any context. Even here right in absfg. When
the FACT that the VAST majority of deaths has
been among people that were already in their
last two or three years seems to become part
of the policy debate, up comes the voices
countering with things like "I know someone
who died younger than that" or "it has even
killed a teenager": persuasion done by the
word count. The most obvious motive for this
is the reasoning that goes "we don't want
people to believe that they are immune
themselves, because then they will be
unmotivated to help in the fight." That idea
has merit. I find it compelling myself, to
a degree, but all I am talking about here is
degrees.

In the case of Colin Powell (who I didn't
even know had died) or any other particular
"covid death", the existence of also-lethal
comorbidities also needs to be part of the
information we swim in when making policies,
not something that is sidelined because
well-meaning bureaucrats and media editors
decide that it gives some of us "the wrong
message". That they are doing this is not
conducive to trusting what they tell us.
It's quite the opposite in fact.

And Ned, it would be for you too if we were
discussing a topic that doesn't slot so
nicely into your partisan commitments. If
you've EVER distrusted the public narrative,
say, on the justification for invading Iraq
perhaps, you know what I'm talking about.

I don't know how you think you can
confidently say that my "proposal that 'half

of all covid deaths are really a recording

phenomenon'" is ridiculous when A) you had
to edit what I _actually said_ to come up
with that, and B) you have no way of knowing
what the percentage is yourself.

Oh, I get it. You want to deny that the
issue even exists, and blindly accept that
every reported covid death is a death caused
by covid. Perhaps you are also fine with
the tools of persuasion being employed in an
effort to give the impression that we are
all at equal risk, when that is just plain
untrue. It's okay to "nudge" the masses with
skewed information, because most of the
masses are idiots anyway, right?

Did you tape up your windows against an
anthrax attack by Saddam?

So, back to Colin Powell. I would find it
adequate to declare his death a death from
multiple causes including covid, if that was
the opinion of the doctor recording his
cause of death. (So much for another
creative exaggeration of yours designed to
create the opponent you want to argue with
as opposed to the opponent you are actually
arguing with.) I would even accept it as a
death caused by covid alone, if that was the
opinion of the doctor. But this is NOT --
let me repeat that -- NOT how the covid
deaths data appears to be being assembled.
The numbers we are receiving are NOT
declared from full diagnoses. They are
declared in a reporting system that is blind
to what the doctor has declared. There are
possible good statistical reasons for that,
I presume, but that makes those numbers of
little use for weighing what policy
decisions to make. It makes them biased
towards over-estimating the impact of the
virus on society.

To me, there is a duty to give us (the
public) enough information to form decent
opinions with, not to merely use information
to nudge us into compliance with policies
(regardless of whether they are well
intended or even the right policies). In
the case of covid, this could probably be
accomplished from existing data quite
easily. That this is not done, doesn't fill
me with confidence. At a minimum it tells
me that a standard that _I_ would hold
myself to for the sake of trustability, is
not a standard that my authorities think
they need to respect.

This, in turn, makes the _suspicion_ that
the numbers are being deliberately faked
reasonable (even though this is not a
contention of mine). It means that I can
respect people who have become seduced into
believing conspiracy theories, even if I
don't find those theories reasonable
myself.

Maybe ask yourself this question. If you
suspected that the number of deaths from
something was being _minimised_, then found
evidence supporting that, even evidence that
the minimisation was accidental and systemic
not deliberate, how would you react? Would
that fill you with confidence in the system
that was leading to that minimisation, and
potentially leading to you yourself being at
greater risk than you thought you should be
if the information was being given the
public weight you thought it deserved?


--
Love

P.S. I am satisfied that the number of 1918
flu deaths estimated are accurate since our
estimates are forensic and presumably factor
in statistical probabilities WRT
comorbidities. And even if they didn't
factor in comorbidities, 1918 was before the
sudden rise in longevity experienced in the
20th century that is attributable to many
improvements in medicine, including most
notably antibiotics and vaccines that greatly
reduced deaths in the young and allowed us to
even get to the large population of people in
their 80s and 90s now inhabiting nursing
homes. That giant bubble of exceptionally
frail people -- people with an advanced range
of comorbities -- didn't exist in 1918. We
won't be able to postmortem the covid pandemic
and do a real comparison to 1918 until we are
well past it. And frankly, I don't care about
1918. There is no purpose in mentioning it,
ever, in the same discussion as covid, except
as a means of persuasion. I am specifically
opposed to making persuasion a valid part of
the media's mission, or even our government's
mission, in the policy debate space.

[Love]

In article <fe03d480-f061-4bd3...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Yeah, so America is polarised and a huge
constituency in that polarisation (the privileged
intelligentsia) is on one side of that
polarisation.

You're going to have to get up earlier to find
something that will be surprising to me.

America was headed that way before Trump and that
wasn't going to get better if Hillary had won.
Under Hillary, there still would have been
anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, and probably even
one guy who gargled with too much bleach, but you
wouldn't have been able to lay it at Trump's feet.

Calling it "Trump" or something more vague like
"the same cabal" is making an excuse to not deal
with what is happening. It's providing an
excuse to retrench each time there is an
opportunity to do something different. That's
not particular to you, but PTSD or TDS (Trump
derangement syndrome), take your pick, and
don't be surprised if you find a ribbon for it
in your mail one day.


--
Love

[Love]

In article <skp9qf$jnm$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

I get "The page you requested could not be found."

It's not there.

BTW "neo-commie deep state fucks" is APPROVED.
Even though I am a deep state sceptic, it's too
delicious to not want to repeat it. :)

Politics is more like horseshoes and hand
grenades than like chess or bowling.


--
Love

[Love]

In article <skpuvf$cs6$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

Yup, gone again. What kind of amateur outfit makes
posts with non-persistent URLs?

So anyway, you could have just copied the one you
have identified. Like so...

"Well, it’s finally happened. The late, great Thomas Jefferson, one of our
most important Founding Fathers, and a principal writer of the Declaration
of Independence, is being “evicted” from the magnificent New York City
Council Chamber. Who would have thought this would ever be possible (I did,
and called it long ago!). Next up, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and,
of course, George Washington. The Radical Left has gone crazy, and it’s
hurting our Country badly—But someday soon, sane people will be back, and
our Country will be respected again!"

I'd probably vote for Trump just for saying that
when the Dem candidate is not saying anything to
oppose the radical left at all.

Of course, I might be literally killing some
apopleptics if I did that, so perhaps I shoudn't
even risk triggering them by saying that.

Moral choices are hard!


--
Love, non-plural

[Noah Sombrero]

A relevant admission. Yes, an easily understood statistic gets very
hard to conjure when there are multiple random causes.

>I presume, but that makes those numbers of
>little use for weighing what policy
>decisions to make. It makes them biased
>towards over-estimating the impact of the
>virus on society.
>
>To me, there is a duty to give us (the
>public) enough information to form decent
>opinions with,

You are trapped in your own elitist reality. You are capable of
forming such opinions. Many others are not. Especially in a world
where there are multiple random reasons for things, as demonstrated by
the great numbers of obvious falsehoods that people are willing to
believe. "The madness of crowds..."

It all depends on the relative size of the mini/maximization, doesn't
it?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 06:59:44 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <skpuvf$cs6$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...
>>On 10/20/2021 11:19 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:41:19 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2021 9:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, where's my medal? It appears I am a survivor and living
>>>>>>> reminder of Trump-induced PTSD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-vm9uvwxcsk898
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting that donnie boy thinks he needs a captcha. Also, it looks
>>>>> like the page you reference has been removed. It confess that I could
>>>>> not resist having a look at whatever tRump could muster as a reply to
>>>>> the above indictment.
>>>>
>>>> It's still there and no captcha for me.
>>>>
>>>> If Twitter weren't a bunch of neo-commie deep state fucks, you could
>>>> read it there.
>>>
>>> Maybe it doesn't like my canadian ip address.
>>
>>https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-azv8ydcpn8898
>>
>>Still there, different address.
>>
>>In case it changes again it's the 2nd post dated 10/19/21.
>
>Yup, gone again. What kind of amateur outfit makes
>posts with non-persistent URLs?

They obviously don't want you to be able to post a valid link. Link
followers are then forced to go to the site (like I did) and then get
potentially exposed to all the rest donnie boy has to say.

>So anyway, you could have just copied the one you
>have identified. Like so...
>
>"Well, it’s finally happened. The late, great Thomas Jefferson, one of our
>most important Founding Fathers, and a principal writer of the Declaration
>of Independence, is being “evicted” from the magnificent New York City
>Council Chamber. Who would have thought this would ever be possible (I did,
>and called it long ago!). Next up, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and,
>of course, George Washington. The Radical Left has gone crazy, and it’s
>hurting our Country badly—But someday soon, sane people will be back, and
>our Country will be respected again!"
>
>I'd probably vote for Trump just for saying that
>when the Dem candidate is not saying anything to
>oppose the radical left at all.

The decision would be based on how much I loved these old icons
compared with how much I wanted to avoid nefarious projects that
donnie boy might dream up.

>Of course, I might be literally killing some
>apopleptics if I did that, so perhaps I shoudn't
>even risk triggering them by saying that.
>
>Moral choices are hard!
--

Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

It is more like horseshoes for us, chess for them.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

Right. Very ominous.

>Under Hillary, there still would have been
>anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, and probably even
>one guy who gargled with too much bleach, but you
>wouldn't have been able to lay it at Trump's feet.

But it would be only one guy.

>Calling it "Trump" or something more vague like
>"the same cabal" is making an excuse to not deal
>with what is happening. It's providing an
>excuse to retrench each time there is an
>opportunity to do something different.

Who sez?

>That's
>not particular to you, but PTSD or TDS (Trump
>derangement syndrome), take your pick, and
>don't be surprised if you find a ribbon for it
>in your mail one day.
--

Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

What the hell are you talking about, man? I have been
pronounced 'Sane' by Tang, ferchrisake!...
https://i.postimg.cc/sDJ9tYt2/Tang-Ribbon-Non-Crashed5.jpg

That's the only ribbon I need.

And as for your comparing me to a "protestant in Ireland

who blames the catholics for everything he doesn't like,

from trains running late to milk turning sour", it's about
time that somebody blamed Trump for SOMETHING.

It is absolutely staggering what that guy got away with,
with no reprisal whatsoever. There are elements of the
Constitution that have no meaning whatsoever now (like
the emoluments clause) because of Trump. He openly
committed extortion at least twice on a major scale -
once internationally when he shook down a foreign
leader to indict Biden's son, and domestically when
he called Georgia election officials and threatened to
prosecute them unless they "got him 11,780 votes".

Can Biden do that? Could Hillary have done that?
You're damn right they couldn't. But Trump gets away
with it. Why is that?

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Because tRumpists love him for doing stuff like that. And the rest of
us don't hate him enough.

> Ned
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Noah the Sith Lord.

Feel the hatred Noah. Feel it grow within you.

[Noah Sombrero]

Dark force types in star wars.

>Feel the hatred Noah. Feel it grow within you.

Nuts. I'm busy feeding my goldfish, and weeding the radishes.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <458b094c-bcbc-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

If Biden or Hillary did it, they would "get
away" with it too. And we both know there
are things that Trump supporters and
Republicans also claimed were "gotten away
with" and in fact became hard facts amongst
them, as hard as the facts you cite and that
are repeated on your side of the partisan
split. Trump supporters loved to chant
"lock her up". I don't see you chanting
"he should be locked up" as any more or less
based in fact.

That Biden and Hillary don't do such things
as often as Trump did, perhaps, would be
owing only to the political cost to them
their actions would have INSIDE their own
parties. Trump DID exploit an internal
weakness within the Republican party. I
think we can agree on that. He is a
phenomenon and an exception but anything he
did that you found outrageous is clearly a
blindspot in the US constitution, if it's
something you think should have been
prosecutable or precluded in some other
formal way. I have the luxury of saying
that because I don't think the US
constitution is the amazing worship-worthy
document Americans seem to be required to
pledge fealty to.

So sure, blame Trump for what you think
are outrages, if it's more comfortable than
blaming the entire political makeup of the
USA for letting him happen. Just don't
expect me to think that is based in reason,
or that no one is blaming him for anything.
"What Trump did wrong" is still daily news
for the left in America. He offends you
personally.

Tang's declaration is enough to keep you
out of the absfg funny farm, I suppose.
We need to have some standards after all.
Maybe I've been too harsh and you are only
suffering from TOD. That's easily treated.

--
Love

[Noah Sombrero]

Which is to say he simply got away with it.

>Just don't
>expect me to think that is based in reason,
>or that no one is blaming him for anything.
>"What Trump did wrong" is still daily news
>for the left in America. He offends you
>personally.

Yes, it is long past time (since somewhere before 2016) to stop
obsessing about his pussy grabbing and all the rest. That is simply
gives him free air time which it turns out was a large part of what
got him elected. He is sensational, which means irresistible for many
people.

>Tang's declaration is enough to keep you
>out of the absfg funny farm, I suppose.
>We need to have some standards after all.
>Maybe I've been too harsh and you are only
>suffering from TOD. That's easily treated.
--

Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:20:30 PM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> In article <458b094c-bcbc-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>,
> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Yes, we can agree that "Trump DID exploit an

internal weakness within the Republican party."

And it's not that there is a blindspot in the
Constitution. It's that one party, whose members
were willing sacrifice all their integrity and honesty
to get the Supreme Court packed with right-wingers
and a trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires, had
enough control of the Senate to block the normal,
constitutional checks on that usurpation of democracy.

The damage is extreme. If, in the future, more than
60% of eligible voters actually come out to vote, then
the other party will have the power, and now the
precedents, to justify their own usurpations.
(Assuming the massive programs to disenfranchise
poor and minority voters being done now by that
first party do not succeed.)

Ned

[Love]

In article <264398c2-37ef-4d6a...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Founding Fathers: "Oh, we just trust that
no one will ever go there because their
honesty and integrity will keep them from
doing it."

Just doesn't sound plausible to me. Sounds
like either a blind spot or the actual
intended design of the constitution.

Even so, I don't know for sure but I don't
think the US constitution anticipated or
intended to limit America to just two
parties, either, yet it has happened.

Really, you are convincing me that all a
phenomenon like Trump does is illustrate
America's political weaknesses by
exploiting them. Why not rail on about
whatever allowed Trump to do the things
you don't like, rather than just Trump
himself or his party?

--
Love

[Julian]

They reserve the right to use all the same
tools. It's not the methods that are bad
only some of those who might use them, ie.
other people.

[Wilson]

Exactly. They do actually believe that Trump supporters are deplorable
and irredeemable.

[Ned]

No, this is shit that has truly never happened before.
Why do you think I keep that SWNSB list?

When it got really, really bad in the past, when Joe
McCarty was destroying lives and families in a red-scare
jihad, when Nixon was breaking into doctor's offices to
get medical records to smear his opponents, and breaking
into the offices of the DNC to get info against them, people
stood up (in the Senate and House) and revealed that, and
those perpetrators couldn't stand the light-of-day that showed
everyone just how corrupt they were.

They failed - McCarthy failed, Nixon failed. The light of day
showed everyone how sneaky, venal, underhanded, and
criminal they were.

But now? A president commits public extortion internationally
and domestically, and the senate leader of his party just
chuckles. He makes fun of a person with a disability, and all
of his supporters just laugh.

It's the 'normalization' of criminality that is so bad. 300 million
people saw with their own eyes how he called a mob together,
fed them a lie that the election had been stolen, and sent them
to stop the Electoral College from affirming the vote. And they
DID it. (Wherein five people died and the Capitol got smashed
up.) And this WASN'T a crime?

Several people HAVE gone to jail as a result of that - but the
political party, and the leaders of that party who condoned it,
and their lackeys who are now muzzling professors and
preventing them from testifying about the disenfranchisement
of voters in their state, are free and clear and going about their
business as usual. (And you KNOW that if this sticks, the next
step of the Florida university system will be to order that no
professor in the system can give expert testimony on climate
change - because it "goes against the school's interest by
conflicting with the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis"!)

SWNSB. Truly.

Ned

[Wilson]

https://youtu.be/Wmt3fSi5Rrc

[Love]

In article <slm47i$9c4$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

But do Trump supporters or Republicans more
generally also believe the reverse?

There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

--
Love

[hibi...@fea.st]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Good question. What does the fact that somebody like tRump could get
elected president say about american society? What does the fact that
he can refuse to accept the results of the election say?

But the too big to go to jail thingy is not new. Too rotten to be
president and still get elected. That's new.

Yes, the situation is ominous. What will we do about it? Nothing.
Not one thing. Don't bother keeping a list.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Wilson]

Not in my experience. We hold onto the (probably delusional) hope that
they can be educated and brought back to reality.

[hibi...@fea.st]

Is that so?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <slmuit$ds5$1...@dont-email.me>, Wil...@nowhere.net says...

Heh, they say the same thing about you, at least
when they aren't just dismissing you as racist
sexist nazi deplorables.

--
Love

[Ned]

You forgot paranoid.

Ned

[DMB]

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 09:15:41 UTC-6, Ned wrote:
...

> > >We hold onto the (probably delusional) hope that
> > >they can be educated and brought back to reality.
> >

> > Heh, they say the same thing about you, at least Wo> > when they aren't just dismissing you as racist

> > sexist nazi deplorables.
> > --
> > Love
> >
> You forgot paranoid.
>
> Ned

Women with bulges aren't coming for our guns?

[Wilson]

They are but it's illegal to comment on the bulges.

[Love]

In article <faab3cc5-457b-43b7...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Okay, but SWNSB is a list of phenomena, or
maybe better yet symptoms. It can show that
something is out of whack, but can it show
what that something is?

(I nominate the constitution of the United
States: the container of the biosystem
eventually consuming itself)

--
Love

[Love]

In article <4017b11e-fbf9-4f79...@googlegroups.com>,
ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Thanks. I must be getting old.

--
Love

[Ned]

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:47:27 AM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> In article <faab3cc5-457b-43b7...@googlegroups.com>,
> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:17:49 AM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> >> In article <264398c2-37ef-4d6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >> >On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:20:30 PM UTC-7, Love wrote:
> >> >> In article <458b094c-bcbc-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

> ...

Of course they are symptoms. They are symptoms
of something in its death throes.

I think we know the complaint, or complaints, that
exist on all the various sides of those symptoms. But
I don't think the thing that is dying is the Constitution.
It COULD be. Ie. You could be right. NOBODY who
wrote the Constitution envisioned an America where
one state (California) could have a population greater
than the 21 smallest states.

Or to put it in constitutional terms, an America where
the five smallest states (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota) have a total population
of less than one-tenth of the largest state, but have FIVE
TIMES that state's voting power in the Senate.

So, something is dying. Maybe it's the Constitution.
Maybe it's the Republican Party. You DO realize that
almost everything on that SWNSB list is stuff coming
from, or responses to, actions by the Republican party.

Ned

[Captain Squeeka]

On 11/2/2021 11:22 AM, Ned wrote:
> Of course they are symptoms. They are symptoms
> of something in its death throes.
>
> I think we know the complaint, or complaints, that
> exist on all the various sides of those symptoms. But
> I don't think the thing that is dying is the Constitution.
> It COULD be. Ie. You could be right. NOBODY who
> wrote the Constitution envisioned an America where
> one state (California) could have a population greater
> than the 21 smallest states.
>
> Or to put it in constitutional terms, an America where
> the five smallest states (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska,
> North Dakota, and South Dakota) have a total population
> of less than one-tenth of the largest state, but have FIVE
> TIMES that state's voting power in the Senate.
>
> So, something is dying. Maybe it's the Constitution.
> Maybe it's the Republican Party. You DO realize that
> almost everything on that SWNSB list is stuff coming
> from, or responses to, actions by the Republican party.

Deal with it. The US is not a unitary state and never was
conceived to be. It was initially a confederation so weak
that it had to be revised. The Senate was a firewall to assure
the smallest states could still be heard despite their
contingent in the House of Representatives being tiny.

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."

California has more than ten percent of all Representatives:

State Representatives
Alabama 7
Alaska 1
Arizona 9
Arkansas 4
California 53
Colorado 7
Connecticut 5
Delaware 1
Florida 27
Georgia 14
Hawaii 2
Idaho 2
Illinois 18
Indiana 9
Iowa 4
Kansas 4
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 6
Maine 2
Maryland 8
Massachusetts 9
Michigan 14
Minnesota 8
Mississippi 4
Missouri 8
Montana 1
Nebraska 3
Nevada 4
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 12
New Mexico 3
New York 27
North Carolina 13
North Dakota 1
Ohio 16
Oklahoma 5
Oregon 5
Pennsylvania 18
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 7
South Dakota 1
Tennessee 9
Texas 36
Utah 4
Vermont 1
Virginia 11
Washington 10
West Virginia 3
Wisconsin 8
Wyoming 1

Total 435

As an example, California has 53 TIMES the voice
of Alaska despite its importance in many ways.
The fact that Alaska has two Senators protects
its rights to represent its significant native
American population and its position as a source
of oil and minerals. Further, its living conditions
are quite different from the lower 48 and they
need to be able to preserve their way of life.

What this is REALLY about is you want to disenfranchise
all the smaller states. Biden is from Delaware and
a long-time Senator. Your logic would have him never
be President in essence.

If what you contend was acted upon, what reason would
these states remain in the union? Would you retain
them by force even if they voted to leave the union
in a large percentage?


--
Captain Squeeka
Master of Penetrating Insights
and Lubricating Social Interaction

[Ned]

Absolutely. This question was settled definitively
156 years ago. The only error back then was not
enforcing Reconstruction for more than 10 years
after the South lost the war.

And the only error of late has been the disastrous
repeal of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act,
which immediately empowered the South to
disenfranchise poor, black, and other minority
voters.

Ned

[Love]

In article <0acd9f6b-ef70-4866...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Well yeah, it's your list, worthy though the
items might be.

I don't know about dying, but the constitution
itself permits the things that you lament, and
that suggests that _some_ way to correct them,
and a way that will stick, is necessary. And
not just because you say it's necessary but
because the other side is at the bargaining
table. If ever there was a time to either
give up something sweet and precious and dear
to get something even more important, this
could be it. Or perhaps it's time for the
Dems to start bringing guns to the knife fight,
as some of them believe they could if they
wanted to.

As for small states having too much power, I
can't agree with that assessment. That kind
of arrangement is there to prevent a tyranny
of the majority, and that's essential in any
functioning democracy with enough territory.


--
Love

[Captain Squeeka]

On 11/5/2021 2:03 AM, Love wrote:
> As for small states having too much power, I
> can't agree with that assessment. That kind
> of arrangement is there to prevent a tyranny
> of the majority, and that's essential in any
> functioning democracy with enough territory.

Just ask Quebec!

[Ned]

Can you at least admit that at some point of
investing small states with power, there can be
too much, or that the original disposition of power
between states no longer simply protects small
states, but over-invests them with power, as a
result of unforeseen demographic changes?

Specifically the case where 5 states, with less
than 10% of the population of 1 large state, have
5 times the voting power of that large state in the
Senate chamber which is the body that confirms
Supreme Court justices, and decides the outcome
of impeachments of federal officials. (And, via the
electoral college, the election of the president.)

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 08:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

It is also true that those 5 states do not form a single interest
block.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Love]

In article <a4f66685-d176-4e7b...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...

Yes, I can admit that. The Meech Lake Accord
and Charlottetown Accord both risked scuttling
Confederation as we know it by obstructionism
for small provinces.

> Specifically the case where 5 states, with less
>than 10% of the population of 1 large state, have
>5 times the voting power of that large state in the
>Senate chamber which is the body that confirms
>Supreme Court justices, and decides the outcome
>of impeachments of federal officials. (And, via the
>electoral college, the election of the president.)

That does sound like a problem someone failed to
anticipate, but wailing over those small states
actually using their outsized power doesn't seem
likely to be productive.


--
Love

[Noah Sombrero]

With Ontario and Prince Edward Island, or Calif and Wyoming, it is,
"We don't want them over there telling us over here what to do". On
both sides. Essentially a struggle for power.

The us founders tried to compromise by having one of each, a
legislative body based on population, and one based on political
partitions.
--
Noah Sombrero