U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19

[sms]

U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19

The three nationwide mobile carriers are helping the U.S. make forward
progress against Covid-19.

'AT&T cuts ties with fake news site OAN'
<https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2022/01/14/san-diegos-oan-losing-its-biggest-revenue-source-as-directv-cuts-ties/>.
This was a business decision because of the growing boycott of AT&T
owned businesses. Of course now Trump is urging his fans to boycott AT&T
owned businesses!
<https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2022/01/16/trump-targets-att-in-retaliation-for-directv-dropping-san-diegos-oan/>.

"T-Mobile to terminate corporate employees who aren't vaccinated by
April -memo"
<https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/t-mobile-terminate-corporate-employees-who-arent-vaccinated-by-april-memo-2022-01-29/>.

"AT&T to require COVID-19 vaccine for employees represented by IBEW
Mobility, Alascom IBEW Local 1547 and Alascom Teamsters Local 959 labor
contracts"
<https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_covid_19_vaccine.html>.

"Verizon Update on COVID-19 vaccine requirements."
<https://www.verizon.com/about/news/speed-october-14-2021>.

Sadly, none of the companies are requiring vaccination for all
employees, just certain employees. What's especially disappointing is
that they're not requiring employees in their retail stores to be
vaccinated since that's where the public interacts, in person, with
their employees.

What wasn't stated in any of the articles is whether or not companies
with unvaccinated employees are following the lead of Delta Airlines,
and some other large companies, and significantly increasing the
employee contribution to health insurance for unvaccinated employees.
This step is more of a carrot than a stick, and would likely work better.

[nospam]

In article <st8v6s$5ac$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19

they knew it was caused 5g.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:28:26 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, none of the companies are requiring vaccination for all
> employees, just certain employees. What's especially disappointing is
> that they're not requiring employees in their retail stores to be
> vaccinated since that's where the public interacts, in person, with
> their employees.

Steve,

This is a (related) opinion piece on your post, bearing in mind I have
higher degrees in this stuff, and nobody else here likely does (which means
you don't know one billionth of what I know about this Covid thing).

And yet you _think_ you know enough to tell _others_ how to think.
That's the problem with this procedure being politicized due to fear.

I get it you're deathly afraid of your own shadow, Steve.
I get it _all_ the Democrats are (apparently) driven purely by fear, Steve.

Me?
I'm driven by facts and logic.

Not fear.
I run the math when I have to calculate whether I should get the shot.
(And, I know what is in that shot which is nothing like a polio vaccine!)

I don't expect you to understand what I'm going to summarize below as you're
a purely-fear-driven Democrat to the core, where it's obvious I'm neither a
Democrat nor a Republican because I think for myself (they don't tell me how
to think, Steve, and neither do you).

Here's how the Democrats think:
Democrats on some medical procedures: It's my body, my choice.
Democrats on other medical procedures: It's not my body nor my choice.

What's the difference?
Answer: Fear.

Democrats don't fear abortions (which is the death of an innocent child).
But Democrats fear a coronavirus (which most people are immune to).

It's OK by the way that you Democrats are driven by fear & not by logic.
As long as you keep your slogans straight Steve.
It's either my body my choice... or it's not, Steve.

Which is it?
Is it my body or not Steve?

You tell me because you are a Democrat who claims it is my body from one
side of your mouth, and then on the other side of your mouth you claim that
it is not my body at all.

This duplicity in the Democrats (who don't even believe their own
propaganda) is a problem because _nothing_ from politicians can be believed
if they can't even keep their slogans from contradicting each other.

FACTS (and logical assessments of those facts):
a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.
j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is neglibible.
l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.
r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.
v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.
w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.
x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.
y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.
z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.

I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.
--
Adults can't disagree with the facts (facts are funny that way); but adults
can logically disagree with my assessments of facts (adults are funny that
way).

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:02:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19
>
> they knew it was caused 5g.

I know a lot of kooks feel that the 5G causes diseases and I haven't studied
that but I don't think it does so that's why I didn't bother looking it up.

However, just as I ask people at Costco why they're putting premium fuel in
a Honda Civic and I get a parroting of Chevron slogans from them, and just
as I ask people in the Costco lines who have an iPhone why they bought it
and again, I get a parrot of Apple slogans, I _have_ asked _everyone_ I know
why they get the shot and why they did not get the shot.

All I get from most of them is the parroted slogans from either the
Democrats (they got the shot) or from Republicans (they didn't get it).

What's common about _both_ is all of them are ignorant about _everything_
surrounding Covid, and I must say I have degrees in this stuff so like
Winston Churchill was rumored to say about Democracy is true.

Spend just five minutes with either the Democrats or the Republicans on this
topic and you'll realize they're _all_ speaking out of pure ignorance.

Ask anything if you want, since I know this stuff better than all of you
combined (most likely) where I deal in facts (surprise!) & logic (surprise!)
--
Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools); but logical
people will put different weight on each fact when they assess them.

[John McGaw]

On 1/31/2022 11:16 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> which most people are immune to

There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this country
alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't claim any
advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me the numbers
seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis is required --
just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of dead unvaccinated
up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else really matters when
it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write, how
do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding to
the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in Covid
ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could be very
good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

--
Bodger's Dictum: Artifical intelligence
can never overcome natural stupidity.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:02:57 -0500, John McGaw wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 11:16 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> which most people are immune to
>
> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this country
> alone, that might disagree with that if they were able.

Thank you for posting your feelings because I have a good heart and a ton of
knowledge that I would like to bestow upon others not so fortunate as I.

Notice that I said the CDC said the death rate in the USA is 0.2% overall,
which, as you may recall, already includes the already very old & very sick.

Also notice I never tell other people _what_ foreign substances to inject
into their bodies as every person has to make that decision for themselves.

> I don't claim any
> advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes

I welcome _intelligent_ discourse on this subject, mainly for two reasons:
a. So that I can learn how others think (who don't know what I know), and,
b. So that others can gain at least an inkling of what I know about Covid.

While I probably have more degrees in this field than anyone on this
newsgroup, all you need is avg adult comprehensive skills to comprehend the
26 logical items that I stated in the prior post (I stopped at the end of
the alphabet because I could essentially go on for a long time with facts).

If you ever find even a single fact stated by me to ever be wrong, let me
know. Lord knows, the iKooks have tried for decades (and failed so far).

HINT: A fact is _different_ from an assessment of that fact; so if you're
going to claim a fact is wrong, look at it again because it could be an
assessment of a fact, where assessments depend on weights given to facts.

> and to me the numbers
> seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis is required

Are you claiming that CDC 0.2% fatality percentage is factually wrong?
Or that the CDC 0.002% fatality percentage for the 5-11 aged kids is wrong?

(Because only a fool disagrees with well established scientific facts.)

> just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of dead unvaccinated
> up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else really matters when
> it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Being logical, I'm well aware of what 0.2% is of a very big number; but that
doesn't change the fact the fatality risk to any one individual _is_ that.

I posit that any one person (whether Democrat or Republican or an individual
thinker as I am) _must_ calculate the risk to _themselves_ when making a
decision of what foreign substances to have injected into their bodies.

> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write, how
> do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding to
> the death toll?

I answered that question in this thread already & I welcome more solutions.
*T-Mobile Nazis to terminate corporate employees who aren't vaccinated*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/5j5m7T3DUX4>

Notice that my proposed solution would work, and it would have the benefit
that most people would be _safer_ (if my position on senescence is correct).

> Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in Covid
> ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could be very
> good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

I'm glad you made that statement above because I try to learn _why_ people
think the way they do, where that statement illustrates _exactly_ what you
base your decisions upon.

Fear.
Not logic.

But fear.

Now it's fine that _you_ make all your decisions based on being driven crazy
by your own fears... but some of us out there use scientific facts & logic.

[sms]

On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:

<snip>

> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>
> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
well as in the public interest, should be applauded.

We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
vote for him.

No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

[nospam]

In article <st9dc1$vmf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

he stopped doing that because they don't want to hear it. he was booed
when he mentioned it at his rallies.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated,

kids are required to be vaccinated to go to school and the military
will vaccinate cadets, for many diseases, not just covid.

[The Real Bev]

On 01/31/2022 11:30 AM, sms wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:
>
> <snip>

Firing people is stupid.

>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
>> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
>> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Most of the dead are old sick people according to everything I've read.
Not surprising -- perhaps COVID has just replaced pheumonia.

>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
>> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
>> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
>> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
>> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
>> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.
>
> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>
> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

I'm a Conservative, but I figure that the shots would probably help and
probably wouldn't hurt and were free so I got them. It really bothers
me that The Government first said cloth masks were good enough, but
later admitted they were worthless and everybody should now use N95
masks, which were forbidden originally. The stats are all suspicious
because they can't be anything else -- they depend on the accuracy of
the opinions of the people who are checking the boxes. Trust in The
Authorities is probably at an all-time low -- with justification.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

I don't think the "facts" are sufficiently firm that regs like that are
justified. It's probably better to be vaccinated, and masks keep us
from spitting on strangers. The rest is uncertain.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:30:07 -0800, sms wrote:

> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.

Steve,

What you just said is utterly ridiculous and completely illogical.

What if the company decides on "something" that is in their self interest,
and which is also in the public interest, like, oh, say fire sex workers.

I realize you base _all_ your decisions purely on illogical abject fear.
But c'mon.

What you just said companies should do is logically indefensible.

> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks.

It's interesting that you are so far off the deep end, Steve, on the left,
that you can't comprehend anyone who speaks scientific facts and logic.

You have to throw them to the far right just to _comprehend_ anyone who
would speak facts that you _hate_ but which you have no defense to.

What your attempt to throw everyone logical to the right means, Steve...
is that you have no _adult_ response to the facts that were presented.

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

Again, you can't comprehend an _adult_ argument without bringing up Trump.
Nobody brought up Trump but you Steve.

This isn't about Trump.
It's about cold scientific facts which you _hate_ because they're logical.

You bring up Trump because you have no adult defense to scientific facts.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated.

I'm not like you in that I know so much more than you ever will about Covid,
that I will _not_ tell anyone else what they should do with their body.

It's my educated opinion that the immune system of most people is _weakened_
by the shot (it's _not_ a vaccine, Steve, no matter how many times you call
it that - as it doesn't the basic CDC definition of what a vaccine does).

I can discuss _how_ most people are _weakened_ by the shot Steve, as it has
to do with responding to just one protein versus responding to the entire
genome of the virus (and all the by products of the disease progression);
but I doubt you have the adult capacity to comprehend scientific facts.

I can also discuss what happens ten, twenty & thirty years from now where
the first response to a virus (which often is the strongest) wanes, such
that most people, during senescence, will find their immune system goes
haywire (I doubt you comprehend what the "cytokine storm is, Steve).

My point is that people who don't need the shot who get it (like most kids,
for example), are actually already _suffering_ the consequences of the shot.

Their immune system is not only weakened (because it's laser focused on just
one thing instead of many) but it's also prone to senescence decades from
now.

I realize that's way above your intelligence level to even _begin_ to
comprehend, Steve, but it's some of the reasons why I don't tell other
people what foreign substances to inject into their bodies.

> They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

Spoken like a true Democrat.
You're _always_ trying to take away people's rights, Steve.

Whether you like it or not, people have a _right_ to choose the substances
that are injected into their bodies, just as, today, they have the right to
kill an unborn baby (and that's OK because that's the law as it stands).

I'm not saying the Republicans are saints; but you, as a die hard well off
the charts kooky Democrat Steve, you are always trying to remove our rights.
--
I'm neither Democrat nor Republican becuase I can think for myself.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:51:29 -0500, nospam wrote:

> he stopped doing that because they don't want to hear it. he was booed
> when he mentioned it at his rallies.

Steve brought up Trump because Steve wanted to deflect the conversation from
the facts, which Steve had no _adult_ response to (so he brought up Trump).

>
>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated,
>
> kids are required to be vaccinated to go to school and the military
> will vaccinate cadets, for many diseases, not just covid.

Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
definition of what a vaccine is) which is not needed by most people.

The facts remain that in this country, people have a right today to decide
whether or not they will get this shot, whether or not Steve likes the fact
that people have that right.

I, for one, know _both_ sides of the argument, and even a third, which are:
a. The Democrats are driven by fear (of the disease);
b. The Republicans, are also driven by fear (of the shot);
c. And neither knows a damn thing about the actual scientific facts.

These are facts that I _welcome_ someone trying to disprove.
1. Most people are completely immune to Covid
2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

I'll stop there with the fact, but rest assured I can also explain how most
people will have a _reduced_ immune response if they get the shot and if
they're in the group who doesn't need it; and I can discuss how senescence
will exacerbate that problem, but I think that's too high above most people
here to even begin to comprehend.

ASSESSMENT:
We need to learn how to deal with this since it's with us forever.
My assessment is we have to maintain fundamental basic human rights.
My assessment is people like Steve want to destroy our basic rights.

I believe there _is_ a solution, and I've already hinted at that solution.
But, sadly, it's too far above the ability of most people to comprehend.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:19:39 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Firing people is stupid.

I agree with The Real Bev, where the problem, as I see it, is Covid scares
the shit out of both Democrats & Republicans, but in different ways.
1. People who are die-hard Democrats are scared to death of the disease;
2. People who are die-hard Republicans are scared to death of the shot;
3. Both seem to be so afraid they want to _force_ others to do what they do.

I, for one, will _never_ tell anyone to either get the shot or not get it.
I will simply explain the facts and let _them_ decide what they should do.

>>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
>>> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
>>> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>
> Most of the dead are old sick people according to everything I've read.
> Not surprising -- perhaps COVID has just replaced pheumonia.

While that sounds cold hearted, it is, in all likelihood, logically sound,
which is that a wave of any "new disease" takes those most susceptible.

Who is most susceptible to Covid?
a. The very old
a. Those who are immunocompromised
d. Those who have lung, kidney, heart, and liver disease

Why?
Because {ACE2,Furin,TMPRSS,HeparinSulfate} receptors are on those tissues.
Also because the timing of pneumonia & the cytokine storm is deadly to them.

>>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
>>> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
>>> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
>>> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
>>> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
>>> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.
>>
>> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
>> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>>
>> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
>> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
>> opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
>> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
>> vote for him.
>
> I'm a Conservative, but I figure that the shots would probably help and
> probably wouldn't hurt and were free so I got them.

The problem with making an assessment of whether or not to get the shot is
_nobody_ knows if they're in the "most people who are immune" category, or
if they're in the "40% or so who will feel the disease" category (and worse,
if they're in the 0.02% fatal category).

Given most people are immune, my position is the government should fund a
_test_ to tell us which category we are in; but I know of nobody doing that
research (if you do, please tell me as _that_ I believe is a solution!).

> It really bothers
> me that The Government first said cloth masks were good enough, but
> later admitted they were worthless and everybody should now use N95
> masks, which were forbidden originally. The stats are all suspicious
> because they can't be anything else -- they depend on the accuracy of
> the opinions of the people who are checking the boxes. Trust in The
> Authorities is probably at an all-time low -- with justification.

The problem with "trust" in the government is the same as trusting Apple to
do what is good for you. Take the Democrats, for example, who say with one
side of their mouths that you have the right to choose what medical
procedures you undergo because it's your body and your choice, but, when the
Democrats get an inkling of fear in them, they _instantly_ revoke that
right.

I'm not saying the Republicans are any different, mind you, in that they're
duplicitous also; which is why Democracy requires an educated populace.

Democrats fear monger; Republicans fear monger too.
People need to _educate_ themselves.

My position is *Don't let the Democrats take away more of your rights*
My position also is *Don't let the Republicans take away your rights either*

If people listed only to ignorant Democrats like Steve clearly is, they'll
be led astray just as much if they had listened to the ignorant Republicans.

>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
>> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
>> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
>> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
>> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
>> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
>> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
>> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.
>
> I don't think the "facts" are sufficiently firm that regs like that are
> justified. It's probably better to be vaccinated, and masks keep us
> from spitting on strangers. The rest is uncertain.

You know me and you know that I can back up every factual claim I make.
Here are just 10 facts that I welcome anyone being able to disprove.

These are facts that I _welcome_ someone trying to disprove.
1. Most people are completely immune to Covid
2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

Here's the problem as I see it.
Q: How many people _know_ those facts?

Almost none, right?
And those are extremely basic facts, right?

That. That. That, is what is so sad about this conversation.

[Andy Burnelli]

Two typos...
1. Add diabetes to the susceptible (basically it's a circulatory issue)
2. It's 0.2% fatal (not 0.02%).

These are facts that _everyone_ should know who is an intelligent adult.
1. Most people are inherently immune to Covid

2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

If people aren't aware of those 10 basic facts, they have no right to make
_any_ decision about what _other people_ should do with respect to the shot.

Trust me, there's more (lots more), such as what's _in_ those shots, and how
they work (and what they do to dumb down the immune system); but there
likely isn't anyone on this newsgroup knowledgeable enough to discuss that.
A. If you get the shot 1st, your primary response is to a _single_ protein;
B. If you get the disease first, your primary response is far more complex;
C. But worse is what happens over time (years and decades from now).

I can't even _begin_ to explain to people here the immunological
consequences of senescence over time given either a primary insult being a
single protein versus the primary insult being a rather complex disease
progression - because most people - I assess - are too ignorant to be making
the claims that they're making.

In summary, if a person doesn't even know those 10 facts, they are ignorant.
--
(Ignorance can be cured - but if they remain ignorant, then they're stupid.)

[5tft]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 06:30:07 +1100, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage,
>> of dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little
>> else really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you
>> write, how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a
>> high-risk high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher
>> risk of adding to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be
>> drafted in to work in Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I
>> hear that the pay could be very good and think of the money that could
>> be saved on PPE.
>
> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>
> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks.

No country that didn't have that is done with covid already.

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated, probably realizing
> that if he wants to run again he needs live people to vote for him.

Yes, but even in countries which have 95% vaccinated arent done
with covid yet, essentially because the vaccines arent that great
at preventing infection, particularly with omicrom. Still great at
avoiding severe disease and being killed by covid.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over.

That isnt feasible how common it is for the vaccinated to get infected.

[Chris]

Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.

> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".

False.

> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).

No different to any other vaccine.

> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%

Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.

> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.

You've avoided separating out the old and sick. Their risk of death can be
over 10%.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).

No it isn't.

> i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.

No it isn't. Even measles which is the most infectious disease doesn't
infect everyone who comes into contact with am infectious person.

COVID in this study has a 2% infectivity rate.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext

> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.

> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.

Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.

> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.

As well as the other types.

> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.

Nope. That's what the virus does.

> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.

Not on its own it isn't.

> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.

It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
response.

> q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.

Vehicles? What kind of vehicles? Cars?

> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.

True.

> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).

Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.

> t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
> u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.

Trucks?

> v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.

Helicopters!

> w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.

That makes no sense.

> x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.

It's gradual and inevitable. The older you are the weaker your immune
system.

> y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.

The point of the vaccine is to confer MORE protection not less.

> z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.

Or, more likely, end up in hospital.

> I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.

Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.

[nospam]

In article <st9jqh$82h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
> definition of what a vaccine is)

yes it does.

> which is not needed by most people.

yes it is.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:06:35 +1100, 5tft wrote:

>> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
>> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
>> opposing masks.
>
> No country that didn't have that is done with covid already.

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.

Nobody knows for sure, but someone will have to tell me _why_ (and how) the
virus will _ever_ disappear from the population now that it's endemic.

My educated assessment is that it's with us forever, just as the three of
seven human coronaviruses are (which cause ~1/3rd of all common colds).

If we didn't wipe _those_ three out, how could anyone opine that we will
wipe _this_ one out, especially since people with the shot still get
infected (as do people who have recovered from the disease).

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.

>> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated, probably realizing
>> that if he wants to run again he needs live people to vote for him.
>
> Yes, but even in countries which have 95% vaccinated arent done
> with covid yet, essentially because the vaccines arent that great
> at preventing infection, particularly with omicrom. Still great at
> avoiding severe disease and being killed by covid.

The fact is the percentage of people killed is about 0.2% overall (which
includes the very sick and the very old in addition to the very young).

I wouldn't blame the shot for not being "all that great" at preventing
infection since even the full blown disease isn't all that great at
preventing re-infection.

Given what we know from studying human coronaviruses since the 1960s,
it's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.

>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
>> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
>> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
>> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
>> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
>> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
>> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over.
>
> That isnt feasible how common it is for the vaccinated to get infected.

This virus is incredibly good at attaching to furin, ace2, tmprss, and
heparin sulfate receptor sites which abound in ciliated mucosal cells.

When Steve claims "unvaccinated people" should stay at home, he's spouting
what only an ignorant person would spout given _everone_ is in the same
boat, immunologically speaking, in some form or another, whether or not they
have the shot given the almost complete certainty that _everyone_ will _be_
infected _many times_ in their lifetime.

It's that way with the 3 endemic human coronaviruses and since this fourth
human coronavirus is now endemic, it will likely be that way with this too.

There are only 7 human coronaviruses known, and we wiped out 3 of them by
nipping them in the bud, but SARS-Cov2 isn't going to ever be wiped out.

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.
--
Ignorance can be cured; it's stupidity that is impossible to cure.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:27:00 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.

Hi Chris,
I welcome any _adult_ discussion, given this is one of my fields of study.

It is true that I've claimed quite a few facts w/o providing the cites.
I'm glad you asked for a cite for the facts that you openly dispute, Chris.

Which of the facts that I've claimed are facts do you openly dispute Chris?

>> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
>
> False.

It's interesting that you provide zero cites to your bold claim.

I'm not ever afraid of facts, Chris.
Are you?

Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
"A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
(e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce
immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
(e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."

Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!

>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>
> No different to any other vaccine.

Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.

What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode making the
antigen after being injected either with pureified mRNA or with a
genetically engineered zoonotic virus that has RNA spliced onto its DNA?

The fact you can't name a _single_ existing vaccine of that type is obvious,
but since you claim you can, I simply call you out on it with three words.
*Name Just One*

>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>
> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.

The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.

You assess that as a "dangerous disease" and that's your God-given right.

But at least acknowledge those are the facts whether or not you used any
facts to make your assessment that it's a "dangerous disease" to you.

HINT: I know you make all your decisions based on fear, and not logic.

>
>> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
>> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
>> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
>
> You've avoided separating out the old and sick.
> Their risk of death can be over 10%.
> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
decade thereafter.

Did you miss that statement?

>> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
>
> No it isn't.

Given we know there are human coronaviruses which are endemic throughout the
world, and we know that it's not unusual for people to get the same virus
multiple times in a single year, let alone many times in their lifetimes,
what makes you think _this_ human coronavirus isn't at least as infectious?

What do you think the risk is of getting infected then, Chris?

>> i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.
>
> No it isn't. Even measles which is the most infectious disease doesn't
> infect everyone who comes into contact with am infectious person.

Wow. I'm impressed. You know the R0 (aka "R naught") for measles ranges from
about 12 to about 18 (it depends _greatly_ on the situation), which is much
_higher_ than that of the SARS-Cov2 virus (which is about 1.5 to about 3.5)
and which is greatly adversely affected by the prevalence of "super
spreaders" in the population.

Kudos to you for knowing something Chris.

The well known problem with such a low R0 is that most people are immune to
covid symptoms, so we have to account for that in our calculations (which
aren't in the 1.5 to 3.5 R0 as far as I know - simply because that data is
unknown until _everyone_ (or most everyone) is tested - and they're not.

> COVID in this study has a 2% infectivity rate.
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext

December 18, 2020
Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext>
a. Little is known about asymptomatic infectivity
b. Singapore tests cases and close contacts (2m for at least 30 min)
c. Seronegative cases are thought to be more infectious than seropositive
d. Studied people between August 1 2020 and October 11 2020
e. They threw out those who didn't have the complete battery of tests
f. They threw out migrant workers who lived in close proximity to people
g. That left them with 628 test subjects & 3790 "close contacts"
h. Each index case averaged 6 people quarrantined
i. Overall 89 (2% of the 3790 close contacts) developed symptoms
j. Of those 89 people that developed covid symptoms
56% were put in quarrantine due to an asymptomatic index case
44% were put in quarrantine due to a seronegative index case
46% were put in quarrantine due to a seropositive index case
k. They calculated 3.85 times more transmission from symptomatic cases
l. They therefore concluded asymptomatic people were "less infectious"

The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.

>> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
>> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.
>
> Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
> ~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.

It's good that you recognize that fact which, for some strange reason, many
of the "Republicans" don't acknowledge, which is that the shot itself isn't
killing people in any great manner.

To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.

>> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
>> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
>
> As well as the other types.

What "other types" are there that are approved for use in the USA Chris?
a. mRNA
b. RNA spliced onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA
c. ?

>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>
> Nope. That's what the virus does.

Chris,
What do you _think_ happens when you take over the nucleus of your body's
cells (in the case of the RNA spliced onto DNA shots) and what do you think
happens when your ribosomes are taken over making spike protein in the case
of the mRNA shots?

To put it in layman's terms, it's like working a POW to death, Chris.

And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.

>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>
> Not on its own it isn't.

Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
Pick one.

>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>
> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
> response.

Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?

>> q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.
>
> Vehicles? What kind of vehicles? Cars?

Idiot.

If you knew immunology, you'd know "vehicle" is a common term.
*Novel adjuvants & delivery vehicles for vaccines development*
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928709/>
"The pure recombinant and synthetic antigens used in modern day
vaccines are generally less immunogenic than older style live/attenuated
and killed whole organism vaccines. One can improve the quality of
vaccine production by incorporating immunomodulators or adjuvants
with *modified delivery _vehicles_ viz. liposomes*, immune stimulating
complexes (ISCOMs), micro/nanospheres apart from alum, being used
as gold standard."

*How do you Solve a Problem Like Autoimmune Attack*
<https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-autoimmune-attack-308738>
"The abridged gene fits snugly into a *viral delivery _vehicle_ designed*
some time ago by Jeffrey Chamberlain, PhD, a co-author of the study
and a professor of neurology, medicine and biochemistry at the
University of Washington."

Google Patent
*Antigen-and-drug _vehicle_ which enables the changeover*
from the selective production of lgA antibody to the production of both of
lgA and lgG antibodies, and transnasal/transmucosal vaccine
<https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101257919A/en>
"An antigen-and-drug _vehicle_ (AD _vehicle_) which enables the
transnasal, transmucosal and transdermal applications; a killed
vaccine which can induce both of mucosal immunization and humoral
immunization simultaneously by using the AD _vehicle_; a technique
for preparation of the vaccine; an AD _vehicle_ which enables the
changeover from the induction of the selective production of IgA
antibody to the induction of the production of both of IgA and IgG
antibodies; a transnasal vaccine, transmucosal vaccine or
therapeutic/prophylactic agent for allergy using the AD _vehicle_;
and others."

>> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
>
> True.

At least you're aware that whether or not you get the shot or if you get
infected, the antibody titre isn't high for very long.

This fact has _huge_ implications for my assessment that this virus will be
with us forever.

>> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
>
> Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.

You're _agreeing_ with me, so you agree we're stuck with "boosters" forever
(even as we don't do "boosters" for the flu, but let's ignore that for now).

What you didn't seem to comprehend is my assessment that if we left the 60%
or so of the population who is completely immune to Covid symptoms alone,
then _they_ would not need the boosters forever (most likely) given there is
no evidence that you get "not immune" once you're known to be immune.

What that means, mathematically, is that most people are getting boosters
for the rest of their lives and they never even needed the shot in the first
place.

What amazes me is how little people have thought about such ramifications.

>
>> t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
>> u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.
>
> Trucks?

See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.

>
>> v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.
>
> Helicopters!

See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.

>> w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.
>
> That makes no sense.

Correction. It makes no sense _to you_ (because you're an idiot).

But it's a commonly known attribute of our immune systems.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+senescence>
Pick one.

>> x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.
>
> It's gradual and inevitable. The older you are the weaker your immune
> system.

What do you _think_ happens in these two very different scenarios as we age?
a. Person A has an _initial_ insult that elicits a single spike protein, vs,
b. Person B has an initial insult that elicits _multiple_ complex antigens

Thought questions:
A. Whose immune response is likely to be "complex" (versus naive)?
B. What will happen to each person above when their immune system senesces?
C. Which person is more likely to be able to fend off greater variations?
etc.

While I commend you Chris for knowing some stuff, have you ever _thought_ of
those ramifications above? No? Why not?

>> y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.
>
> The point of the vaccine is to confer MORE protection not less.

See above thought questions.

Essentially dumbing down the immune system response to respond almost
completely to only a _single_ antigenic insult is not "more protection"
Chris, when you consider that most people have an initial response to quite
a few antigenic insults inherent in the coronavirus, Chris.

>> z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.
>
> Or, more likely, end up in hospital.

We can go into the details of what % needs hospitalization if you like.
But the fact remains that most people are completely immune to Covid.

>> I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.
>
> Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.

Overall, I assess that you made quite a few idiotic comments but they simply
show you don't know what you don't know about immunology - and yet - you at
least recognized the basic facts of the matter as I had presented them.

That's better than most people, Chris, in my humble assessment of your
abilities.

I welcome your response given you've never heard from the people who
surround you the thoughts and ideas that I've presented to you, as I have a
far greater knowledge of this subject than it seems you are exposed to.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:44:13 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
>> definition of what a vaccine is)
>
> yes it does.

Here's the definition from the CDC for what they consider a "vaccine".

"A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
(e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce
immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
(e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."

<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>

Do you have even the _slightest_ idea of how this shot works, nospam?

>> which is not needed by most people.
>
> yes it is.

I always wonder if people like you are just pulling our leg, or if you
actually own a belief system which is based on exactly zero actual facts.

[sms]

On 1/31/2022 2:27 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.

Sadly, that's become the norm for the anti-vaxers that don't have the
scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the
reality of infectious diseases and statistics.

But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their
will, just that they accept the consequences of their actions.

Already we see entities like cruise lines not allowing unvaccinated
passengers.

Noncitizens who are nonimmigrants and seeking to enter the United States
by air are required to show proof of being fully vaccinated against
COVID-19 before boarding a flight to the United States from a foreign
country. Some airlines are no longer carrying unvaccinated passengers
<https://www.frommers.com/tips/airfare/these-airlines-require-all-passengers-to-be-vaccinated-for-covid-19>.

Some employers that are not requiring vaccinations are raising health
insurance premiums for employees that choose to not be vaccinated
<https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2021/10/29/delta-ceo-surcharge-unvaxed-working/6191401001/>.

The infuriating thing is that it's those like Andy, that believe "my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," have negatively affected a
lot more than just themselves. They've become "side-issue-specialists"
complaining that the government's changing mask type suggestions are
proof of something, but they're not sure what. Yes, early in the
pandemic there was an effort to reserve the more effective masks for
health care workers, but now that there is no longer a shortage of more
effective masks the guidance changed.

The Super Bowl will be interesting. Masks are required, as is either a)
proof of vaccination or b) a negative PCR test that was taken within 48
hours, or a negative antigen test that was taken within 24 hours.
Supposedly the NFL had contingency plans to move the game to a state
with a 50-70% higher death rate than California.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need
for illusion is deep.” ― Saul Bellow
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:02:48 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, that's become the norm for the anti-vaxers that don't have the
> scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the
> reality of infectious diseases and statistics.

Steve,

I get it that you're an off-the-wall pegged-far-to-the left Democrat.
But you need to comprehend not everyone lives in abject fear like you do.

Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree (and like you I worked at
National Semiconductor in Building D alongside Bob Peas, but unlike you I
also have _multiple_ higher degrees in the biological sciences, Steve.

And like those in your family, I have people in nursing in my family too.
But each person _still_ needs to comprehend these basic but simple facts:
a. The chance of dying from Covid is about 0.2% (includes everyone).
b. The chance of not even _feeling_ it is around 60% when you do get it.

Just because you do not appear to comprehend facts, doesn't make them wrong.

> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their
> will, just that they accept the consequences of their actions.

Well, there's the constitutionality of making their job dependent on a shot
that is not even close to what is the _definition_ of a vaccine, Steve.

> The infuriating thing is that it's those like Andy, that believe "my
> ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," have negatively affected a
> lot more than just themselves.

If you're claiming that I'm ignorant, and that you're knowledgeable, then
how do you claim that with merely an undergraduate EE degree and nothing
else?

Worse than your lack of education, on what _facts_ do you make your claim?

[nospam]

In article <sta4b9$23f$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree

if that were even remotely true, you would have a basic understanding
of batteries, loads and in particular, internal resistance. you do not,
thus it must be false.

[Kill Vaxholes]

sms wrote:

> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their will

Stop lying.

[Bob F]

[Bob F]

On 1/31/2022 2:44 PM, nospam wrote:

Covid has only killed 1/375 of all Americans. In 11 days, it killed more
people than all the murders in ANY year. It has been the largest single
cause of death of police officers in the USA.

No problem at all.

That WA state cop that FOX made a hero of for getting fired because he
refused to get vaccinated - died of covid last Friday.

What a hero.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:32:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree
>
> if that were even remotely true, you would have a basic understanding
> of batteries, loads and in particular, internal resistance. you do not,
> thus it must be false.

Unlike you, nospam, I don't bullshit.

I can always back up my claims, also quite unlike you bullshitters, nospam.
You _never_ can.

Wanna see my textbooks, nospam?
I'll put them next to my iPads.

Which of my EE text books do you want to see a photo of next to my iPads?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:42:03 -0800, Bob F wrote:

> Covid has only killed 1/375 of all Americans. In 11 days, it killed more
> people than all the murders in ANY year. It has been the largest single
> cause of death of police officers in the USA.

Nobody ever didn't say that Covid is fatal to about 0.2% of people overall.

> No problem at all.

Are you aware that most people are innately immune to Covid or not?

> That WA state cop that FOX made a hero of for getting fired because he
> refused to get vaccinated - died of covid last Friday.

Are all your belief systems based entirely on the experience of one person?

> What a hero.

Do you realize your entire belief system is based on zero scientific facts?

[sms]

On 1/31/2022 7:42 PM, Bob F wrote:

<snip>

> That WA state cop that FOX made a hero of for getting fired because he
> refused to get vaccinated - died of covid last Friday.
>
> What a hero.

It indeed is very sad that people are dying because they believe "news"
as broadcast by Fox and OAN instead of believing doctors and scientists.

The number of Covid deaths has actually been under-reported in the U.S.,
often for political reasons, see
<https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/underreporting-covid-19-deaths/>.

[nospam]

In article <staad6$1ser$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree
> >
> > if that were even remotely true, you would have a basic understanding
> > of batteries, loads and in particular, internal resistance. you do not,
> > thus it must be false.
>

> Unlike you, nospam, I bullshit.

ftfy

>
> Wanna see my textbooks, nospam?

let's see your grades. whatever books you supposedly have, you did not
learn anything from them.

how is it someone with a supposed ee degree does not understand
anything about batteries and basic circuits? it's first semester stuff
and even taught in high school physics sufficiently to answer the
question.

[nospam]

In article <staalf$1uik$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > Covid has only killed 1/375 of all Americans. In 11 days, it killed more
> > people than all the murders in ANY year. It has been the largest single
> > cause of death of police officers in the USA.
>
> Nobody ever didn't say that Covid is fatal to about 0.2% of people overall.

cfr is about 1-2%, depending on various factors.

>
> Are you aware that most people are innately immune to Covid or not?

that is very much false.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:02:39 -0800, sms wrote:

> It indeed is very sad that people are dying because they believe "news"
> as broadcast by Fox and OAN instead of believing doctors and scientists.
>

This conversation has _nothing_ to do with Fox news (or Trump).
That you are _desperate_ to make it all about them, tells us about you.

Most people are immune to Covid whether you like that fact or not.

> The number of Covid deaths has actually been under-reported in the U.S.,
> often for political reasons, see
> <https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/underreporting-covid-19-deaths/>.

The risk of death is 0.2% whether you like that fact or not, Steve.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:09:45 -0500, nospam wrote:

> how is it someone with a supposed ee degree does not understand
> anything about batteries and basic circuits? it's first semester stuff
> and even taught in high school physics sufficiently to answer the
> question.

I notice you won't take me up on my offer because you know I don't bullshit.

That you feel I don't understand internal resistance of batteries is
interesting though, as it's you who claims that "battery chemistry" is why
Apple was so _desperate_ to secretly throttle iPhones.

How exactly did battery chemistry cause Apple to not only secretly throttle
iPhones, nospam, but also to backdate the release notes well after the fact?

[AJL]

On 1/31/2022 8:02 PM, sms wrote:

> The number of Covid deaths has actually been under-reported in the
> U.S.,

The hospitals are overflowing in my area because of Covid. A lady I know
had to have her elective heart surgery postponed because there were no
facilities available. One ambulance had to go extra miles (and time) to
a farther emergency room because the closest one was full. So I suspect
that there are also many non-Covid deaths that are caused by Covid...

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:09:46 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Nobody ever didn't say that Covid is fatal to about 0.2% of people overall.
>
> cfr is about 1-2%, depending on various factors.

Idiot.

It's a _lot_ more than that rate you claim, "depending on various factors"
such as the very old and the very sick and the immunocompromised, nospam.

Overall it's 0.2% (which includes _all_ those "various factors", nospam.

>> Are you aware that most people are innately immune to Covid or not?
>
> that is very much false.

Whenever you make your fact-free denials of well known facts, I have to
wonder whether you are pulling our leg, or if your entire belief system
really is based on exactly _zero_ facts, nospam.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=percentage+people+covid+asymptomatic>
Pick one.

Note the numbers range because it's impossible to tell for sure since the
asymptomatic people may not know to get tested and they may not report
results even when they do get tested (likewise with people who get sick).

You have to look at the magnitude... which is astoundingly huge.

[Your Name]

Yep, there was a man in the newspaper here in New Zealand yesterday who
has been waiting months for triple bypass heart surgery. He could die
at any minute if his heart decides to give out, but dealys caused by
Covid (lockdowns, etc.) have meant he and thousands of others have had
to wait. The only surgies taking place are those that emergency ones
that *have* to be done *right now*.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:59:52 -0800, AJL wrote:

> The hospitals are overflowing in my area because of Covid. A lady I know
> had to have her elective heart surgery postponed because there were no
> facilities available. One ambulance had to go extra miles (and time) to
> a farther emergency room because the closest one was full. So I suspect
> that there are also many non-Covid deaths that are caused by Covid...

This anecdotal fear mongering doesn't change the facts.

The fact is the fatality rate is about 0.2% overall (which _includes_ the
very sick and the very old and the immunocompromised cases).

The fact is that most people are innately immune to Covid in terms of
symptoms (although they're still able to pass it on for a period of time).

The overall fatality rate for children aged 5 to 11 in the USA is 0.002%.

All the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't change those facts.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:20:07 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> Yep, there was a man in the newspaper here in New Zealand yesterday who
> has been waiting months for triple bypass heart surgery. He could die
> at any minute if his heart decides to give out, but dealys caused by
> Covid (lockdowns, etc.) have meant he and thousands of others have had
> to wait. The only surgies taking place are those that emergency ones
> that *have* to be done *right now*.

Notice how all the people who are driven insane by fear take a single case.
And then they turn that single instance into their entire belief system.

Fear drives them. Not science. Not logic.
Fear.

[nospam]

In article <staeng$111b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > how is it someone with a supposed ee degree does not understand
> > anything about batteries and basic circuits? it's first semester stuff
> > and even taught in high school physics sufficiently to answer the
> > question.
>
> I notice you won't take me up on my offer because you know I don't bullshit.

projection. you continue to avoid answering and instead are playing
your usual games.

[nospam]

In article <staf2b$13nh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Nobody ever didn't say that Covid is fatal to about 0.2% of people overall.
> >
> > cfr is about 1-2%, depending on various factors.
>
> Idiot.

ad hominem.

> It's a _lot_ more than that rate you claim, "depending on various factors"
> such as the very old and the very sick and the immunocompromised, nospam.
>
> Overall it's 0.2% (which includes _all_ those "various factors", nospam.

nope. overall it's 1-2%, with different cohorts having different rates.

early on, it was about 2%, but vaccines and more effective treatments
have reduced it, although some people refuse either or both, raising it
for their cohort.

> >> Are you aware that most people are innately immune to Covid or not?
> >
> > that is very much false.
>
> Whenever you make your fact-free denials of well known facts, I have to
> wonder whether you are pulling our leg, or if your entire belief system
> really is based on exactly _zero_ facts, nospam.
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=percentage+people+covid+asymptomatic>

asymptomatic is not the same as immune. anyone who claims that has no
understanding at all.

someone who is asymptomatic *is* infected and *can* transmit it to
others.

asymptomatic transmission is a large part of what's driving the spread.
people think they're fine and do not stay home, then end up giving it
to others without even realizing it. this is particularly true for
omicron, which is *very* easily spread.

>
> You have to look at the magnitude... which is astoundingly huge.

the magnitude of your stupidity, yes.

[Alan]

On 2022-01-31 7:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:42:03 -0800, Bob F wrote:
>
>> Covid has only killed 1/375 of all Americans. In 11 days, it killed more
>> people than all the murders in ANY year. It has been the largest single
>> cause of death of police officers in the USA.
>
> Nobody ever didn't say that Covid is fatal to about 0.2% of people overall.
>
>> No problem at all.
>
> Are you aware that most people are innately immune to Covid or not?

That is one of the most inane statements you have ever made.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:27:00 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.
>
> Hi Chris,
> I welcome any _adult_ discussion, given this is one of my fields of study.
>
> It is true that I've claimed quite a few facts w/o providing the cites.
> I'm glad you asked for a cite for the facts that you openly dispute, Chris.
>
> Which of the facts that I've claimed are facts do you openly dispute Chris?
>
>>> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
>>
>> False.
>
> It's interesting that you provide zero cites to your bold claim.
>
> I'm not ever afraid of facts, Chris.
> Are you?

Let me highlight it for you:

> Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
> "A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
> (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or

"fractions thereof administered to induce immunity"

RNA is a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so fits the definition perfectly.

> and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
> Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
> of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
> others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
> (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."

The CDC list is not exhaustive.

> Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
> HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!

I'll show you how you're the ignorant one.

>>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>>
>> No different to any other vaccine.
>
> Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
> comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.
>
> What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode

The COVID vaccines don't cause cells to explode.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/

Cells produce the spike protein and then via an MHC-mediated process
*present* the antigens on the surface which then raises an immune response.
No explosion reqiured.

>
>>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>>
>> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.
>
> The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
> The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
> Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.

You're completely missing the point and falling for the ageist and ableist
propaganda pushed by antivaxxers that it doesn't harm me so it doesn't
matter that a few old and infirm people die. That's subhuman thinking.

COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.

>>> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
>>> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
>>> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
>>
>> You've avoided separating out the old and sick.
>> Their risk of death can be over 10%.
>> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator
>
> I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
> percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
> decade thereafter.
>
> Did you miss that statement?

I was replying to this post only.

>>> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> Given we know there are human coronaviruses which are endemic throughout the
> world, and we know that it's not unusual for people to get the same virus
> multiple times in a single year, let alone many times in their lifetimes,
> what makes you think _this_ human coronavirus isn't at least as infectious?
>
> What do you think the risk is of getting infected then, Chris?

See the reference I gave you below.

Disappointing that you reject evidence so glibly.

>>> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
>>> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.
>>
>> Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
>> ~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.
>
> It's good that you recognize that fact which, for some strange reason, many
> of the "Republicans" don't acknowledge, which is that the shot itself isn't
> killing people in any great manner.
>
> To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
> itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
> of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.

Still wrong.

>>> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
>>> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
>>
>> As well as the other types.
>
> What "other types" are there that are approved for use in the USA Chris?
> a. mRNA
> b. RNA spliced onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA
> c. ?

Who cares about the USA!? Get your blinkers off. This is a global pandemic
and requires a global response.

There are many other vaccines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

>>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>>
>> Nope. That's what the virus does.
>
> Chris,
> What do you _think_ happens

I don't need to think at all. The research has *shown* how the vaccines
work and it's not via cytotoxicity.
See my reference above.

The virus on the other hand does self-replicate causing the targetted
(lung) cells to lyse. This is what causes the viral symptoms of the
disease.

You're confusing disease with vaccine. Of course they have very different
modalities.

> And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
> recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.

Correct, but you need to get the basics right.

>>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>>
>> Not on its own it isn't.
>
> Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
> Pick one.

Again you're confusing disease with vaccine. The *viral and complete* Spike
protein is the primary vector for disease. The vaccines only have an
incomplete version of the Spike protein which has none of the effects.
Obviously, as we don't want to cause harm with the vaccine.

>>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>>
>> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
>> response.
>
> Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?

I suggest you read them again. Together with the ones I shared above.
You've a fundamental misunderstanding.

None of those confirm your statement that the body makes an "assemblage of
attack vehicles". These are delivery vehicles manufactured to help the
activity of a drug or vaccine.

>>> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
>>
>> True.
>
> At least you're aware that whether or not you get the shot or if you get
> infected, the antibody titre isn't high for very long.
>
> This fact has _huge_ implications for my assessment that this virus will be
> with us forever.

There are many factors. No single one is most important: viral variation,
vaccine uptake, vaccine efficacy and longevity etc.

>>> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
>>
>> Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.
>
> You're _agreeing_ with me, so you agree we're stuck with "boosters" forever
> (even as we don't do "boosters" for the flu, but let's ignore that for now).

The use of the word "dooming" is not factual. That's subjective.

> What you didn't seem to comprehend is my assessment that if we left the 60%
> or so of the population who is completely immune to Covid symptoms alone,
> then _they_ would not need the boosters forever (most likely) given there is
> no evidence that you get "not immune" once you're known to be immune.

Again just like flu. As we slowly move to the next phase we may be doing
annual boosters for the most vulnerable only. That decision is yet to be
made.

The pandemic is still rude so we still need to deal with that first.

> What that means, mathematically, is that most people are getting boosters
> for the rest of their lives and they never even needed the shot in the first
> place.

False. During a live outbreak you vaccinate everyone as a blanket to get on
top of the infection. Vaccination is for targeting the disease not
individuals.

> What amazes me is how little people have thought about such ramifications.

What amazes me how little people understand the basics when claiming to
have done their own research.

>>
>>> t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
>>> u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.
>>
>> Trucks?
>
> See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.
>
>>
>>> v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.
>>
>> Helicopters!
>
> See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.
>
>>> w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.
>>
>> That makes no sense.
>
> Correction. It makes no sense _to you_ (because you're an idiot).

Ad hominem attacks are an indication that you've lost the argument.

> But it's a commonly known attribute of our immune systems.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+senescence>
> Pick one.
>
>>> x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.
>>
>> It's gradual and inevitable. The older you are the weaker your immune
>> system.
>
> What do you _think_ happens in these two very different scenarios as we age?
> a. Person A has an _initial_ insult that elicits a single spike protein, vs,
> b. Person B has an initial insult that elicits _multiple_ complex antigens
>
> Thought questions:
> A. Whose immune response is likely to be "complex" (versus naive)?
> B. What will happen to each person above when their immune system senesces?
> C. Which person is more likely to be able to fend off greater variations?
> etc.

D. which one is most likely to still be alive?

> While I commend you Chris for knowing some stuff, have you ever _thought_ of
> those ramifications above?

More than you can imagine.

Just to be utterly explicit your Person A is equivalent to a vaccinated
individual and Person B is equivalent to herd immunity gained by catching
the disease.

Your questions A-C are highly affected by survivor bias. If you kill all
your susceptible people, then of course the remainder will appear to have a
better immune response. However, in a humane society we need to *protect*
the vulnerable not lead them to slaughter.

So the natural thing is to immunise the whole population to benefit the
vulnerable. Just like we do with all childhood vaccines.

>>> y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.
>>
>> The point of the vaccine is to confer MORE protection not less.
>
> See above thought questions.
>
> Essentially dumbing down the immune system response to respond almost
> completely to only a _single_ antigenic insult is not "more protection"

It is compared to a naive immune system and there's plenty of evidence to
support it. Search COVID vaccine efficacy.

> Chris, when you consider that most people have an initial response to quite
> a few antigenic insults inherent in the coronavirus, Chris.
>
>>> z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.
>>
>> Or, more likely, end up in hospital.
>
> We can go into the details of what % needs hospitalization if you like.

No-one needs hospitalisation.

> But the fact remains that most people are completely immune to Covid.

Asymptomatic infection is not the same as immune.

>>> I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.
>>
>> Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.
>
> Overall, I assess that you made quite a few idiotic comments but they simply
> show you don't know what you don't know about immunology - and yet - you at
> least recognized the basic facts of the matter as I had presented them.
>
> That's better than most people, Chris, in my humble assessment of your
> abilities.
>
> I welcome your response given you've never heard from the people who
> surround you the thoughts and ideas that I've presented to you, as I have a
> far greater knowledge of this subject than it seems you are exposed to.

You have no idea who I am nor what I know, yet you're so arrogant to
believe your own theoretical knowledge. Which in fact is full of holes and
misunderstandings.

[sms]

Very true. Those indirect deaths, caused by facility and staff shortages
that could have been averted had so many people not decided to "own the
libs" by not getting vaccinated, could have been avoided and should be
counted as Covid-related.

How anti-vaxers do statistics: <https://i.imgur.com/2pUYdp2.png>.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:02:48 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Sadly, that's become the norm for the anti-vaxers that don't have the
>> scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the
>> reality of infectious diseases and statistics.
>
> Steve,
>
> I get it that you're an off-the-wall pegged-far-to-the left Democrat.
> But you need to comprehend not everyone lives in abject fear like you do.
>
> Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree

That explains a lot. Come back when you have a degree in something
biological.

Much of biology, especially molecular biology, is probabilistic. Not
deterministic like engineering.

You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
very likely. Or reduce significantly.

We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
likelihoods based on multimodal variables.

Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they respond -
sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
when or exactly how nor the impact.

Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some imparted
force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
your arm off.

[Chris]

What does that prove? That you can buy books? I've got rid most of my
biology text books as they're no longer accurate.

I have a copy the bible here. That doesn't make me a Christian.

[sms]

On 2/1/2022 4:53 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
> very likely. Or reduce significantly.
>
> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.
>
> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they respond -
> sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
> when or exactly how nor the impact.
>
> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some imparted
> force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
> your arm off.

Well-stated.

Part of what the anti-vaxers like to seize on is the evolving medical
advice regarding Covid.

When researchers discovered that their original determination of spread
was not 100% accurate, for example spreading through touching surfaces
is not as common as originally believed, Covid-deniers proclaimed that
the medical experts were clueless.

When the medical community wanted to reserve the limited N95 and KN95
masks for hospital use and told people to wear surgical masks or cloth
masks, then later, when sufficient N95 and KN95 masks became available
and they modified their guidance, the Covid-deniers proclaimed that the
medical experts were clueless.

When breakthrough Omicron infections began in those that had been
vaccinated, the anti-vaxers began proclaiming that "vaccines don't work."

The most ridiculous proclamations from Covid-deniers was to deny that
people who died as a result of Covid would have died soon anyway,
because of other medical conditions. Yet all they would have to do is to
compare the total annual death rate pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, by
age, to learn that that was not the case. What is true, is that over the
next five to ten years we will likely see a reduction in the annual
death rate below pre-pandemic levels because so many people died sooner
that they otherwise would have died.

And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.

I really applaud AT&T for withdrawing financial support to OAN even
though they did it for business reasons.

[sms]

On 2/1/2022 5:00 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> What does that prove? That you can buy books? I've got rid most of my
> biology text books as they're no longer accurate.
>
> I have a copy the bible here. That doesn't make me a Christian.

I still have some of my EE textbooks. But I don't think I'll take a
photo of them and post it somewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Cole@acnewsitics: "Now that Biden won, watch me not wear his name
on my hat and not put a giant Biden flag on my truck and drive around
with it for 4 years like a f***ing weirdo."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 01:16:36 -0500, nospam wrote:

> nope. overall it's 1-2%, with different cohorts having different rates.

There are a number of "overall" rates, one of which is the "Case Fatality
Rate" which is _not_ the "Crude Mortality Rate" that I am quoting, nospam.

One is fatalities per confirmed infection while the other is per population.

> asymptomatic is not the same as immune. anyone who claims that has no
> understanding at all.

Idiot.

I already explained that (multiple times) nospam, which again proves you
don't own even the most basic of adult comprehensive skills.

> someone who is asymptomatic *is* infected and *can* transmit it to
> others.

Jesus Christ nospam.

What grade are you in?

If the only way you can process facts that you happen to hate is to create
your own imaginary strawman of what you "think" I said, and then you attack
that lifeless strawman of your own fabrication, it again proves you don't
own even the most rudimentary of adult comprehensive skills, nospam.

> asymptomatic transmission is a large part of what's driving the spread.

Idiot.

I said this already, multiple times, and - to this credit - Chris actually
disputed it, but at least Chris came up with a study from Singapore that,
while it had huge limitations, showed startlingly _low_ transmission rates
(although the study was limited in scope).

If the only way you can attack what people said is to ignore what they said
and then fabricate your own lifeless strawman and then attack that, then it
just proves you have no ability for an erudite adult conversation, nospam.

You just don't.

> people think they're fine and do not stay home, then end up giving it
> to others without even realizing it. this is particularly true for
> omicron, which is *very* easily spread.

Idiot.

I explained all of this (many times) in this thread alone, nospam, where
again, all you _can_ do is brazenly fabricate an imaginary strawman, and
then you proceed to attack that lifeless strawman of your own creation.

>> You have to look at the magnitude... which is astoundingly huge.
>
> the magnitude of your stupidity, yes.

When you _hate_ a fact, the only way your brain can process that fact is for
you to fabricate a position that nobody took - just so that you can then
attack that imaginary position that never existed.

Interestingly, it's how you handle Apple facts that you hate.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 01:47:11 -0800, sms wrote:

> Very true. Those indirect deaths, caused by facility and staff shortages
> that could have been averted had so many people not decided to "own the
> libs" by not getting vaccinated, could have been avoided and should be
> counted as Covid-related.
>
> How anti-vaxers do statistics: <https://i.imgur.com/2pUYdp2.png>.

The CDC is who claims the US Covid19 case mortality rate is 0.2% Steve.
(0.002% for US children aged 5-11 from October 2020 to October 2021)

I realize you're a pegged-to-the-wall Democrat Steve, which means you _hate_
facts that go against your kindergarten solutions, but seriously, Steve...

*Are you seriously claiming the CDC are "anti-vaxxers"?*

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 16:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> The CDC is who claims the US Covid19 case mortality rate is 0.2% Steve.
> (0.002% for US children aged 5-11 from October 2020 to October 2021)

oops. Crude (not case)!

[Chris]

Yup. All very accurate.

> And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
> Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
> be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
> are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.

There may be some politics, but there's also a lot of money.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/27/anti-vaxxers-making-at-least-25m-a-year-from-publishing-on-substack

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 01:16:36 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> asymptomatic is not the same as immune. anyone who claims that has no
>> understanding at all.
>
> Idiot.
>
> I already explained that (multiple times) nospam,

No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at different
times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
are not the same thing.

An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does (very
effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.

> which again proves you
> don't own even the most basic of adult comprehensive skills.
>
>> someone who is asymptomatic *is* infected and *can* transmit it to
>> others.
>
> Jesus Christ nospam.
>
> What grade are you in?
>
> If the only way you can process facts that you happen to hate is to create
> your own imaginary strawman of what you "think" I said, and then you attack
> that lifeless strawman of your own fabrication

Exactly what strawman do you think nospam has created?

[Carlos E.R.]

Looking from outside the USA, it is amazing to me that all this is a
huge political issue for USAians. :-o

Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
whether to vaccinate or not.

Here, about 90% of the population that was asked to vaccinate just did
so (and it is not mandatory). Usage of masks is massive, and denialist
demonstrations are minimal. Probably because we had lots of deaths, lots
of infected people severely ill in hospitals, and many people with long
covid.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Let me highlight it for you:

Hi Cris,

I give you _adult_ credit, above all others in this thread, since you
actually _understood_ what I had written (people like Steve & nospam can't).

Then, to your credit, you disagreed with an assessment of the transmission
rate, and again to your credit you found that Singapore paper which showed
lower transmission rates than what I was assessing (although we're talking
under different conditions - but still - that paper _was_ interesting!).

I welcome an erudite discussion, but first be warned I've asked everyone I
know (and plenty I don't know) how _they_ think, and therefore I can "guess"
exactly why you think the CDC definition says something that it simply does
not say.

You can stammer and hem and haw and you can claim that there are imaginary
ink lines in there that do say what the CDC definition does not say, and you
likely will - but I'm already very familiar with that trick.

Listen to me Chris.
Listen closely.

The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which then
causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.

That's a fact.
What's a worse fact is _what_ that "something" is, but that's for later.

You can read and re-read the CDC definition a hundred times and the missing
lines just aren't going to show up (are they in disappearing ink perhaps?).

>> Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
>> "A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
>> (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or
>
> "fractions thereof administered to induce immunity"
> RNA is a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so fits the definition perfectly.

Where is the completely missing part about your body making the antigen?
a. Do you think that's a _minor_ point? (If you do, then you're crazy.)
b. Do you think they just "forgot" to add it? (Again, you have to be crazy.)

*The CDC definition skips the MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE of this shot* Chris.

You think that's by accident?

>> and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
>> Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
>> of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
>> others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
>> (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."
>
> The CDC list is not exhaustive.

Chris,

I'm not going to call you an idiot outright because you _did_ find that
paper from Singapore which showed lower transmission rates than I was
claiming (although under different circumstances)...

But I have to point out the _obvious_ to you.
a. I said it doesn't meet the CDC definition. Right?
b. You said it did. Right?
c. I gave you the CDC definition.
d. Now you claim that the CDC definition is missing pieces.

Duh.
That's my entire point, Chris.

If you first disputed my claim that the CDC's definition is missing the most
important steps, and then when you realize the CDC definition is missing
huge important pieces, then you're _agreeing_ with me, not disagreeing.

Do you understand yourself?

BTW, I have to give you credit, as at least you, of all people, realized
instantly that the shot doesn't meet the CDC's own definition, since it's
completely missing the most important pieces (which is my entire point!).

>> Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
>> HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!
>
> I'll show you how you're the ignorant one.

Well, you agreed with me that the CDC definition is missing the most
important pieces, so I hope you thank me for edifying you on that point.

>>>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>>>
>>> No different to any other vaccine.
>>
>> Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
>> comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.
>>
>> What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode
>
> The COVID vaccines don't cause cells to explode.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/
>
> Cells produce the spike protein and then via an MHC-mediated process
> *present* the antigens on the surface which then raises an immune response.
> No explosion reqiured.

Chris... I'm not going to call you an idiot because you have likely never
taken a class in immunology or biochemistry or genetics. As you know, I
don't bullshit. I have. The cell _always_ dies from being taken over.

It just does. Here are some of my iPads (look at the date) next to just
_some_ of my immunology text, OK?
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio

Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books, so my
education spans the gamut from the biological sciences to engineering.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg>

When you have decades of education, Chris - you learn how things work.

Now, do you think that cell lives after its nucleus has been taken over?
You do?
Really?

Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?
Do you think working the ribosomes to death makes the cell live thereafter?

And, when "presenting" the foreign substances, what do you think the humoral
and innate immunologic recognition of "not self" is going to do to that cell
which appears foreign to your immune system.

>>>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>>>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>>>
>>> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.
>>
>> The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.
>
> You're completely missing the point and falling for the ageist and ableist
> propaganda pushed by antivaxxers that it doesn't harm me so it doesn't
> matter that a few old and infirm people die. That's subhuman thinking.

Chris,
You apparently haven't met anyone in your life that is logical.
Fact based.
Scientific based.

Sensible.
I get my facts from the CDC.

You don't _like_ the CDC's facts, Chris.
And that's fine.

But just because you _hate_ the facts from the CDC doesn't make me a wacko.
It makes _you_ the wacko, Chris.

The fact you think all facts you are completely unaware of (which come from
the CDC) are an anti-vaxxer crusade. What the hell is wrong with your brain?

I think your problem, if I may surmise, is that your belief system was based
purely on fear and not on any actual facts. That's fine, by the way.

Most people don't known one billionth of what I know about Covid, Chris.
But my facts are from the CDC.

So if you don't like the facts from the CDC, don't claim they come from
anti-vaxxers.

Unless your claim is the CDC is anti-vax, Chris?

> COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.

5 million is too low. 5 million is only 0.06% of the world population.

I realize your belief system isn't based on facts, so I ask one question.
What's 0.2% of the world population, Chris?

>> I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
>> percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
>> decade thereafter.
>>
>> Did you miss that statement?
>
> I was replying to this post only.

In my other posts I explained that the risk to any one individual varied
depending on that one individual's circumstances, which _each_ and every
person has to weigh for themselves since this shot is their decision alone.

If they have diabetes and kidney disease and liver disease and if they're
immunocompromised, etc., they _will_ have a higher percentage fatality risk.

It's the _overall_ percentage that the CDC claims is 0.2% that any one
_healthy_ individual has to assess (as their risk is vastly lower than even
that since they're healthy and the 0.2% took into account the very sick).

> See the reference I gave you below.

I read that paper. And more to the point, I _understood_ what it said.
It _was_ interesting and it implies the infection rate is pretty poor.
But it had limitations also (as do all papers).
Note: I have published papers so I know all about how they're done.

>> The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
>> studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.
>
> Disappointing that you reject evidence so glibly.

I summarized _accurately_ what the paper said.
You _thought_ it said something else.

Your problem is you _hate_ the facts from the CDC so you're trying to
explain them away using your fear-based belief system. Stop that.

>> To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
>> itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
>> of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.
>
> Still wrong.

How many of these textbooks were you trained on in cellular mechanics?
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

> Who cares about the USA!? Get your blinkers off. This is a global pandemic
> and requires a global response.

The reason I care about the USA is you get _good_ statistics from the CDC.
I've already explained why I think the WHO statistics are, um, unreliable.
And certainly those from China and North Korea and other areas are also.

The USA is important because the CDC is reasonably good at the facts.
If you want to quote _better_ statistics, I'm all for it but they have to be
useful to the individual because my whole point is the individual has the
choice.

It doesn't matter, for example, to the individual making a decision that
involves _his_ risk that 5% of pilots die in war if the individual is on a
ship, and it doesn't matter to him if he is doing risk assessment if 10% of
infantrymen die if he's a cook in the rear echelon.

The overall fatality risk to any one individual is 0.2% whether you like
that or not but it varies by age (e.g., it's 0.002% for kids aged 5 to 11).

> There are many other vaccines:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

Chris,
Don't play kindergarten games with me.

There are only two _types_ that are approved.
If you don't know that, then you know even _less_ than most people do.

>>>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's what the virus does.
>>
>> Chris,
>> What do you _think_ happens
>
> I don't need to think at all. The research has *shown* how the vaccines
> work and it's not via cytotoxicity.

While I never said that the risk of dying from the shot is high enough to
worry about, I have read the papers that you apparently have not read.

The fact is that the spike protein, in and of itself, is toxic to cells.
You don't _like_ that fact; but it's _still_ a fact nonetheless.

The second fact is that the cells die which I know from _lots_ of education
in this where I've almost never seen a cell _not_ die once you take over its
machinery (and yes, I grew tissue cells in my day).

My degrees span the biological and electrical engineering sciences, Chris.
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design

The cell dies.
If you can find an article that claims the cell does _not_ die, let me know
as it's not something people know who aren't trained in tissue cultures.

> See my reference above.
>
> The virus on the other hand does self-replicate causing the targetted
> (lung) cells to lyse. This is what causes the viral symptoms of the
> disease.

WTF?
What virus?
No virus known to man can "self replicate" Chris.

Half that huge heavy microbiology book in this photo is virology, Chris.
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio

However, you don't need a thousand pages of virology textbook, Chris.
It's on the _first_ page of any virology textbook.

> You're confusing disease with vaccine. Of course they have very different
> modalities.

You _wish_ I was confusing disease with the shot (it's not a vaccine).
I'm not.

I know exactly what it is.
You don't.

Learn to learn from someone who has forgotten in the past fifty years more
than you'll ever know in your lifetime, Chris.

>> And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
>> recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.
>
> Correct, but you need to get the basics right.

You think I don't have the basics of immunology Chris?
Seriously?

Now you're just making up excuses for why your belief system is wrong.

>>>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>>>
>>> Not on its own it isn't.
>>
>> Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
>> Pick one.
>
> Again you're confusing disease with vaccine. The *viral and complete* Spike
> protein is the primary vector for disease. The vaccines only have an
> incomplete version of the Spike protein which has none of the effects.
> Obviously, as we don't want to cause harm with the vaccine.

First off, it's a trimeric spike protein, Chris, but for me to explain to
you why 3 isn't 1 is too much work given you think the protein is the
"vector", which is utterly ridiculous.

The protein is not the vector.
That's idiotic of you to claim it.

I _know_ you wrote that because nobody on the planet would cut and paste
that because it doesn't exist since it's an idiotic statement, Chris.

Chris, you are brining a pebble to a knife fight.
You can't learn from me because you're too stupid.

The only thing I learned from you is that the transmission rates may not be
as high as I think they are, as my assessment is that two people living
together will almost 100% infect the other person within the days that the
first person is infectious. That's the assessment _I_ use to assess how
virile this virus is in terms of infectivity.

You can dispute that assessment, but you need to bring facts to the fore.

>>>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>>>
>>> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
>>> response.
>>
>> Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?
>
> I suggest you read them again. Together with the ones I shared above.
> You've a fundamental misunderstanding.

Chris,
Do you think if I can undersand _this_ stuff, that I can't understand
_anything_ you've ever said in your entire life? Seriously. Think about it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

> None of those confirm your statement that the body makes an "assemblage of
> attack vehicles". These are delivery vehicles manufactured to help the
> activity of a drug or vaccine.

Chris, I was using "vehicle" the way it's often used in immunology where
normally it's a "delivery vehicle" but I used "attack" instead of "deliver".

You were complaining about the "vehicle" and now you complain about
"attack"?

Did you buy too many idiotic arguments this week Chris?

>>>> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> At least you're aware that whether or not you get the shot or if you get
>> infected, the antibody titre isn't high for very long.
>>
>> This fact has _huge_ implications for my assessment that this virus will be
>> with us forever.
>
> There are many factors. No single one is most important: viral variation,
> vaccine uptake, vaccine efficacy and longevity etc.

Lots' more than that, Chris.
Did you study virology and the immune system for years, Chris?
I did.

>>>> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
>>>
>>> Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.
>>
>> You're _agreeing_ with me, so you agree we're stuck with "boosters" forever
>> (even as we don't do "boosters" for the flu, but let's ignore that for now).
>
> The use of the word "dooming" is not factual. That's subjective.

Did you buy too many arguments this week Chris?
I'm making an assessment of the facts.

You're welcome to use different words in your own assessment.
But only an idiot disagrees with facts if they have no better facts.

That's _why_ they're idiots.
a. You don't like facts
b. So you claim they're wrong

It doesn't work that way, Chris.
Except in your mind.

>> What you didn't seem to comprehend is my assessment that if we left the 60%
>> or so of the population who is completely immune to Covid symptoms alone,
>> then _they_ would not need the boosters forever (most likely) given there is
>> no evidence that you get "not immune" once you're known to be immune.
>
> Again just like flu.

Idiot.
It's _nothing_ like the flu.
And it's nothing like flu shots.

You don't have any comprehension whatsoever of what's different because all
you see is a needle. To you, anything injected by a needle works the same.

HINT: It doesn't.

> As we slowly move to the next phase we may be doing
> annual boosters for the most vulnerable only. That decision is yet to be
> made.

I've read the studies that you haven't Chris.

Particularly the one that ran for 35 years out of Amsterdam, Chris.
Why don't you look it up since it's nearer to your neck of the woods.

People got the coronavirus infection _many_ times in those 35 years.
Frequently more than once per year even.

Look it up.
It's a good study.

> The pandemic is still rude so we still need to deal with that first.
>
>> What that means, mathematically, is that most people are getting boosters
>> for the rest of their lives and they never even needed the shot in the first
>> place.
>
> False. During a live outbreak you vaccinate everyone as a blanket to get on
> top of the infection. Vaccination is for targeting the disease not
> individuals.

We're talking _different_ things Chris.
You have to learn how to comprehend what I said.
Not what you _thought_ I said.

I'm talking about any one person's decision to get the shot, or not.
For that, they make a risk assessment to themselves.

It doesn't matter for that assessment the "world good" that the governments
of the world want (and particularly the companies who profit from it too).

It matters the risk to that one person.
Which, if they know nothing else, is a fatality rate of 0.2%.

That's a fact you hate.
But it's _still_ a fact whether or not you hate facts, Chris.

HINT: Your belief system isn't based on facts; it's based on fear.

>
>> What amazes me is how little people have thought about such ramifications.
>
> What amazes me how little people understand the basics when claiming to
> have done their own research.

Do you really think I don't know a billion times more about this than you?
Seriously?

>> What do you _think_ happens in these two very different scenarios as we age?
>> a. Person A has an _initial_ insult that elicits a single spike protein, vs,
>> b. Person B has an initial insult that elicits _multiple_ complex antigens
>>
>> Thought questions:
>> A. Whose immune response is likely to be "complex" (versus naive)?
>> B. What will happen to each person above when their immune system senesces?
>> C. Which person is more likely to be able to fend off greater variations?
>> etc.
>
> D. which one is most likely to still be alive?

Notice your entire belief system is driven insane by fear.

Not logic.
Not science.
Not facts.

Fear.

Your brain works off of fear.
Mine works off of logic.

We're different.
We need to understand each other.

I assess based on cold hard facts; you assess based purely on fear.
will likely live longer than I because you bring a butterknife to cut down a
tree so that you won't hurt yourself while I use a chainsaw for that job.

>> While I commend you Chris for knowing some stuff, have you ever _thought_ of
>> those ramifications above?
>
> More than you can imagine.

Actually, while you can't possibly have thought about senescence (since you
denied it even exists), you _have_ thought about your fears quite a lot.

That I will hand to you.

Your brain works off of fear.
Mine works off of logic.

> Just to be utterly explicit your Person A is equivalent to a vaccinated
> individual and Person B is equivalent to herd immunity gained by catching
> the disease.

We're talking about the individual who is already innately naturally immune.
So "herd immunity" doesn't apply.

> Your questions A-C are highly affected by survivor bias. If you kill all
> your susceptible people, then of course the remainder will appear to have a
> better immune response. However, in a humane society we need to *protect*
> the vulnerable not lead them to slaughter.

While I get it that everything out of your mouth is based on your crazed
fear but what you don't comprehend is that the numbers I quote are for the
entire population as a whole _during_ the epidemic.

It takes into account _everyone_, including those who lived and those who
died.

What you're struggling with is fear and logic don't use the same rationale.
a. Your brain is driven crazy by fear
b. Mine is relaxed because it uses logic

> So the natural thing is to immunise the whole population to benefit the
> vulnerable. Just like we do with all childhood vaccines.

Do you realize that you're advocating modifying the immune system of kids
aged 5 to 11 who have a 99.998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid simply
because of _your_ fears (not the danger to kids, mind you, but to you!).

I realize that.
But do you?

Note: I have to ask myself if you even realize how your brain works.

>> Essentially dumbing down the immune system response to respond almost
>> completely to only a _single_ antigenic insult is not "more protection"
>
> It is compared to a naive immune system and there's plenty of evidence to
> support it. Search COVID vaccine efficacy.

Again, you are assuming I said something I never said because you have no
defense to the things that I did say.

I never once said (nor implied) the shot didn't work.
Why do you think that I said that when I clearly and obviously never did?

What must you fabricate what you think I said just to respond to facts?

>> We can go into the details of what % needs hospitalization if you like.
>
> No-one needs hospitalisation.

What?
Some people need a ventilator.

I can't imagine you saying nobody needs hospitalization.
Perhaps I missed something?

Why wouldn't very sick people "need" help from things like a ventilator?

>> But the fact remains that most people are completely immune to Covid.
>
> Asymptomatic infection is not the same as immune.

Idiot.

Your are bringing sticks to a gunfight by pitting your brain against me.

I already said practically 100% of us are going to get infected, but that
most of us will feel no symptoms whatsoever, which means we're immune.

You need to take a class on immunology Chris to figure out what that means.

Read one of these books maybe?
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio

>> I welcome your response given you've never heard from the people who
>> surround you the thoughts and ideas that I've presented to you, as I have a
>> far greater knowledge of this subject than it seems you are exposed to.
>
> You have no idea who I am nor what I know, yet you're so arrogant to
> believe your own theoretical knowledge. Which in fact is full of holes and
> misunderstandings.

Well, I gave you a bunch of pictures taken today (look at the date on the
iPads) which show you the kind of detail I'm capable of comprehending Chris.

While I commend you for being the only one who looked up _any_ facts (e.g.,
your Singapore study), when you spend all your time refuting what is
published by the CDC and what is in all virology & immunology texts, then
all you're doing is bringing a rock to an artillery dual.

You're out of your league Chris.
Just learn to learn from what I can explain to you.

I'll try to learn from you, but if all you can do is refute common
immunological terms because you've never heard them, then you're wasting all
of our valuable time.

[sms]

On 2/1/2022 9:37 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at different
> times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
> are not the same thing.
>
> An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does (very
> effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.

In fact, one of the problems with the vaccine is that many people are
infected without knowing it because the vaccine has resulted in them
being asymptomatic. Those that are infected, but without symptoms, can
unknowingly spread the virus because they are not self-quarantining. In
some cases they become aware that they are infected when they are tested
in preparation for some kind of surgery, either out-patient or
in-patient, or when they are tested prior to traveling.

The extent to which anti-vaxers will go to delude themselves is incredible.

[nospam]

In article <stbnep$13jo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> If the only way you can process facts that you happen to hate is to create
> your own imaginary strawman of what you "think" I said, and then you attack
> that lifeless strawman of your own fabrication, it again proves you don't
> own even the most rudimentary of adult comprehensive skills

...

> If the only way you can attack what people said is to ignore what they said
> and then fabricate your own lifeless strawman and then attack that, then it
> just proves you have no ability for an erudite adult conversation

...

> I explained all of this (many times) in this thread alone, nospam, where
> again, all you _can_ do is brazenly fabricate an imaginary strawman, and
> then you proceed to attack that lifeless strawman of your own creation.

...

> When you _hate_ a fact, the only way your brain can process that fact is for
> you to fabricate a position that nobody took - just so that you can then
> attack that imaginary position that never existed.

massive projection.

that's exactly what *you* do, no matter the topic.

> Interestingly, it's how I handle Apple facts that I hate.

ftfy

[nospam]

In article <stc2j0$10dj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books,

you have not.

> so my
> education spans the gamut from the biological sciences to engineering.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg>

vacuum tubes/valves??

> When you have decades of education, Chris - you learn how things work.

in other words, you'll know the basics by 2060 or so. maybe 2070.

> I get my facts from the CDC.

you misspelled anus.

> I can't imagine you saying nobody needs hospitalization.

the person most in need of hospitalization is not who you think it is,
and it's an extended stay at a psychiatric hospital.

> Perhaps I missed something?

no perhaps about it. you very definitely did.

[5tft]

I dont find it incredible, but it is certainly interesting how many
are so stupid. And surprising that it is far more than who refuse
to let their kids be vaccinated. Wonder why. Presumably because
it is such a political shit fight in the US.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:44:33 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?

ooops. thinko. Eukaryotic. Duh.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:59:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books,
>
> you have not.

Here'smore... taken today for Chris who complained about words used in
immunology about as much as you complain about Apple-specific battery
chemistry, nospam.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 01:16:35 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I notice you won't take me up on my offer because you know I don't bullshit.
>
> projection. you continue to avoid answering and instead are playing
> your usual games.

Hi nospam,

I assess that you don't even have a college degree, but if you do, show us
just _one_ of your textbooks next to your iOS device please. Like I did.

<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

Now, that doesn't cover a shit ton of other books (e.g., Fortran before
there was a Fortran IV, but I do see some of my assembly language books
lying about). Want photos of them next to the iPads?

My point nospam is you bullshit - I don't.

You have one purpose on Usenet and one purpose only.
Bullshit.

Mine is to edify.
And learn.

Yours is to bullshit.

I edify because I have a good heart.
I learn because I am intelligent.

You are a truly unprepossessing soul, nospam, devoid of meritorious value.
Luckily for you you're not at an IQ of 40 or 50 like Jolly Roger though.
You're more like 98 or so... maybe early 90s based on my assessment.

But back to the textbook challenge, nospam.

Show us just _one_ textbook of yours, nospam.
*Show just one*

[sms]

On 2/1/2022 11:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> Looking from outside the USA, it is amazing to me that all this is a
> huge political issue for USAians. :-o

It's embarrassing. It used to be that ignorant people would not be vocal
about their ignorance, but then some people and some companies realized
that there was big money to be made from ignorance.

Isaac Asimov said in 1980: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant
thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured
by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as
good as your knowledge." But it used to be that people didn't want to
display their ignorance in public. Now they want to.

> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
> whether to vaccinate or not.

There are a bunch of far-right Republican politicians that realize that
their path forward, if they want to run for higher office, requires
sucking up to dumb people in order to win primary elections. That's why
you've seen so many super-spreader events and venues in states with
Republican governors. Pro-Trump red states had a 52% higher average of
COVID-19 deaths per capita than blue states, but those governors don't
care. Governors like Florida's "Ron DeathSantis" (aka "Ron DeSatan")
realize that they can't win without the crazy vote.

> Here, about 90% of the population that was asked to vaccinate just did
> so (and it is not mandatory). Usage of masks is massive, and denialist
> demonstrations are minimal. Probably because we had lots of deaths, lots
> of infected people severely ill in hospitals, and many people with long
> covid.

Fortunately, the same thing is pretty much the case in the urban areas
of California. We're over 80% vaccinated in the county I live in, and
we've had very few people arguing about mask mandates. Our City Council
passed a mask mandate in 2020 and I signed it. My city has the lowest
infection and death rate in the county, and probably the state. We have
a highly educated population, that is very science based. One Saturday
two protesters showed up at the high school, holding signs against mask
mandates. It was very strange since the area around the school is
deserted on the weekend.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:00:03 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> What does that prove? That you can buy books? I've got rid most of my
> biology text books as they're no longer accurate.
>
> I have a copy the bible here. That doesn't make me a Christian.

While you bullshit, I provide facts, Chris.

What are your higher degrees in, Chris?

Name them.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:46:37 -0800, sms wrote:

> I still have some of my EE textbooks. But I don't think I'll take a
> photo of them and post it somewhere.

Steve,
Remember Building D?
Off of Lawrence Expy.

My point is that I don't bullshit.

You do have an EE degree (and your wife is a nurse, one of your kids is a
music teacher, etc.). We've been over this that I do not bullshit.

But this nospam?
He is a bullshitter.

For him to bullshit about Apple-specific battery chemistry is what he does.

[Alan]

See what a little googling will get you?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> That explains a lot. Come back when you have a degree in something
> biological.

Idiot.

I have _multiple_ higher degrees, Chris.
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Medical Instrumentation
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Starting with vacuum tubes

<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?

> Much of biology, especially molecular biology, is probabilistic. Not
> deterministic like engineering.

Idiot.

I _know_ more about microbiology, virology, genetics, biochemistry,
parasitology, mycology, etc. than you'll ever know, you idiot.

> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
> very likely. Or reduce significantly.

I have my name on published peer-reviewed biological papers, Chris.
(I wasn't the principle author though.)

> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.

The one thing I can do, Chris, that you can't do, is I can comprehend facts.

> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they respond -
> sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
> when or exactly how nor the impact.

On that topic of mutation, most people are ignorant like you are Chris, in
that they don't realize RNA viruses mutate. That's what they do.

For reason probably unknown to you, DNA mutations are less frequent than RNA
and this is an RNA virus (although the adenovirus used in the shots isn't).

I've read a few papers on the mutations, where my assessment is twofold:
a. The mutations that _matter_ are actually rather rare for SARC-CoV2
b. However the RNA ball is fantastically huge so mutations _will_ happen

> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some imparted
> force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
> your arm off.

Do you want to see my Physics, Calculus, Trig & Stats books too?
(they're the underlying stuff).

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:20:07 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Yep, there was a man in the newspaper here in New Zealand yesterday who
>> has been waiting months for triple bypass heart surgery. He could die
>> at any minute if his heart decides to give out, but dealys caused by
>> Covid (lockdowns, etc.) have meant he and thousands of others have had
>> to wait. The only surgies taking place are those that emergency ones
>> that *have* to be done *right now*.
>
> Notice how all the people who are driven insane by fear take a single case.
> And then they turn that single instance into their entire belief system.
>
> Fear drives them. Not science. Not logic.
> Fear.

It's staggering that you can't see how this anecdote is symptomatic of the
reality.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

[nospam]

In article <stc4ip$1cf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Now, that doesn't cover a shit ton of other books (e.g., Fortran before
> there was a Fortran IV,

those are completely worthless.

how about books about swift & kotlin and ios & android development?




>
> I have one purpose on Usenet and one purpose only.
> Bullshit.
>
> Mine is to troll.

ftfy

> And learn.

you've failed at that, mostly because it's not possible.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:37:53 -0800, sms wrote:

> Part of what the anti-vaxers like to seize on is the evolving medical
> advice regarding Covid.

Steve,

Do you even realize you have to demonize anyone speaking facts, just so that
your brain (which doesn't work off of facts) can _process_ what they say?

Given the facts come from the CDC, whom are you claiming is "anti vax" here?
Are you seriously claiming the CDC is anti vax?
If so, you're an idiot.

> When researchers discovered that their original determination of spread
> was not 100% accurate, for example spreading through touching surfaces
> is not as common as originally believed, Covid-deniers proclaimed that
> the medical experts were clueless.

OK. Rest assured I was trained decades ago where _everyone_ who is anyone
was taught inside Memorial Hall that sneezing on people did _not_ transmit
the common cold as much as touching did.

Every text in those days showed the picture (black and white of course) of
people sneezing and the spread of particles, and then people playing cards.

The ones playing cards had a _greater_ transmission than the ones being
sneezed on. The conventional wisdom of that day was that physical contact
was needed.

It turns out that, at least for Covid, and likely for many others, both are
far more equal than people _thought_ they were.

That's just a case of facts catching up via the need for further studies.

I find it interesting that you have to assume that science is perverted for
you to hold your claims that people changing their assessments based on new
data is a mark of "covid deniers".

Everything you say Steve, shows your brain doesn't work off of facts.

Do you even realize you have to demonize anyone speaking facts, just so that
your brain (which doesn't work off of facts) can _process_ what they say?

> When the medical community wanted to reserve the limited N95 and KN95
> masks for hospital use and told people to wear surgical masks or cloth
> masks, then later, when sufficient N95 and KN95 masks became available
> and they modified their guidance, the Covid-deniers proclaimed that the
> medical experts were clueless.

I was trained in virology many years ago, Steve, and _that_ was the common
wisdom, which, as it happens, has _changed_ due to more recent data.

For you to demonize all scientists just because _you_ were ignorant of these
recommendations from the past is what you do, Steve.

But it really means you're an idiot.
I _know_ what they taught decades ago, and you don't.

It changed.
And that's OK.

But don't demonize scientists for changing their recommendations based on
new facts.

> When breakthrough Omicron infections began in those that had been
> vaccinated, the anti-vaxers began proclaiming that "vaccines don't work."

Idiot.

The only way you can process anyone who thinks using CDC's own facts is to
demonize them.

It's _your_ brain that is wacko, Steve.
Not the CDC.

> The most ridiculous proclamations from Covid-deniers was to deny that
> people who died as a result of Covid would have died soon anyway,
> because of other medical conditions. Yet all they would have to do is to
> compare the total annual death rate pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, by
> age, to learn that that was not the case. What is true, is that over the
> next five to ten years we will likely see a reduction in the annual
> death rate below pre-pandemic levels because so many people died sooner
> that they otherwise would have died.

Idiot.

What are you claiming that _anyone_ here has "denied", Steve, that isn't a
fact.

Name just one thing.

Name just one.

> And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
> Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
> be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
> are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.
>
> I really applaud AT&T for withdrawing financial support to OAN even
> though they did it for business reasons.

You would.
You're a pinned-far-to-the-left die-hard Democrat.

All you die-hard Democrats ever wanted to do was take away people's rights.
To wit: You want to take away their right to "my body my choice" don't you.
--
I'm not defending the Republicans mind you; but Steve isn't one of them.

[Your Name]

It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid, selfish,
and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to wear seatbelts
in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a gun, believe in
fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles, religions), use their
own spellings and definitions for "English" words, sue anyone (if not
shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue to use miles, gallons, and
inches, elect braindead morons to be President (Trump, Bush), stick
their noses and military into other country's personal business, etc.,
etc., etc.

But the reality is that, as with most places, it's just a minority of
loud-mouthed, brainless idiots who create a massively bad impression of
the entire country and ruiung it for everyone else. Most Americans are
just normal people trying to live their lives properly and obeying the
rules.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:11:52 +0000, Chris wrote:

> There may be some politics, but there's also a lot of money.

That's the _second_ time Chris has said something intelligent.

I applaud him for recognizing this is not only about science.

It's about money.

To give a shot, probably forever, to a population where most people don't
even need it (and for whom it dumbs down their immune system most likely),
is big business indeed.

I doubt a single one of you reading this can comprehend what I just said.
(e.g., you have no idea what the difference is between these two things)
a. Response from a person who has the shot who was already immune, versus
b. That same person without the shot (who was already immune).

*Do _any_ of you idiots have any inkling whatsoever of the difference?*
--
Sigh.
I thought so.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:36:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
> whether to vaccinate or not.

It's because we have basic human rights.

One of those basic human rights can be summarized as:
My body, My choice

Do you know that most people are innately immune to Covid?
Do you know the fatality rate is 0.2% overall?
For kids, it's 0.002% overall.

No?
I didn't think so.

All of you are making all your decisions based on fear.
And that's OK.

Just keep away from taking away our basic human rights.
--
You'd be amazed to know whether I got the shot or not.

[sms]

On 2/1/2022 12:45 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> It's staggering that you can't see how this anecdote is symptomatic of the
> reality.
> https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

It's not staggering at all when you understand that facts and logic are
an anathema to Andy.

It's not just a facility shortage that has resulted from Covid, it's
also a staffing shortage. "19 states have fewer than 15% of ICU beds
left as health care staffing shortages complicate care"
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html>.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:18:47 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's embarrassing. It used to be that ignorant people would not be vocal
> about their ignorance, but then some people and some companies realized
> that there was big money to be made from ignorance.

Steve,
You are completely ignorant of everything about Covid.

You don't know it, but it's clear from everything you claim.

So stop saying others are ignorant when you don't know the first thing about
it.

> There are a bunch of far-right Republican politicians that realize that
> their path forward, if they want to run for higher office, requires
> sucking up to dumb people in order to win primary elections. That's why
> you've seen so many super-spreader events and venues in states with
> Republican governors. Pro-Trump red states had a 52% higher average of
> COVID-19 deaths per capita than blue states, but those governors don't
> care. Governors like Florida's "Ron DeathSantis" (aka "Ron DeSatan")
> realize that they can't win without the crazy vote.

I stay away from politics until someone like Steve blows his political horn.

I see the Republicans for what they are, but you're a die-hard
far-to-the-left Democrat, so I'll just speak of what you are, Steve.

Every chance you get you are trying to take away our basic human rights.

One of those basic human rights is summarized by your own slogan, Steve.
My body. My choice.

You want to revoke that basic human right because _you_ are afraid.
I'm not afraid. I'm a scientist. And an engineer. I know statistics.

The fatality rate is 0.2% overall whether you like that fact or not.
You are willing to destroy our basic human rights over something that has a
99.8% chance of not happening.

What's next Steve?
What is the next basic human right you want to revoke, Steve?

> Fortunately, the same thing is pretty much the case in the urban areas
> of California. We're over 80% vaccinated in the county I live in, and
> we've had very few people arguing about mask mandates. Our City Council
> passed a mask mandate in 2020 and I signed it. My city has the lowest
> infection and death rate in the county, and probably the state. We have
> a highly educated population, that is very science based. One Saturday
> two protesters showed up at the high school, holding signs against mask
> mandates. It was very strange since the area around the school is
> deserted on the weekend.

I have to admit that California has gone a long way toward making the
_tests_ (and the shot) available to everyone as easily as they can.

Kudos to the government for doing that fantastic deed of making those
_tests_ easily attainable.

My assessment is that testing is far more important than the shot itself
(which is _not_ a vaccine by the CDC's own definition), as the test result
is something that each person can use to make good decisions.
--
You'd be amazed if you know my stance on the shot for myself & family.

[AJL]

On 2/1/2022 1:54 PM, Your Name wrote:

> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid,
> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to
> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a
> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles,
> religions), use their own spellings and definitions for "English"
> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue
> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead morons to be
> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and military into other
> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.

And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with illegals wanting to
live here. Strange, huh...

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:54:12 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> insist on letting every idiot have a gun

That's _another_ right, enshrined in the Constitution, that Steve wants to
take away from us.

In their "death of a thousand cuts" approach to Steve's die-hard Democrats
eliminating the rights enshrined in the 2nd amendment, did you see what San
Jose did just last week?

[sms]

What's especially interesting is that so many workers, that are in the
U.S. illegally, have been deemed "essential workers" during the
pandemic. "73% of total U.S. farmworkers are foreign-born and 48% are
unauthorized immigrants."

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:46:59 -0500, nospam wrote:

> how about books about swift & kotlin and ios & android development?

I'll take anything you've got.
Put your iOS device next to the books when you post the screenshot.
So we'll know if you're just bullshitting us, nospam. Again.

[Andy Burnelli]

To Steve's ignorant point that the CDC changed their recommendations, I
found one the _classic_ photos which were common in the day but I didn't
find the images yet of the people playing cards and coughing on each other.

<https://i.postimg.cc/C5mRvN4H/books09.jpg> Old school vector transmission

The old school has changed (with new data) but Steve is hell bent on
demonizing the scientists simply because they changed their recommendations
based on new science.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> It's staggering that you can't see how this anecdote is symptomatic of the
> reality.
> https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

Chris,

The reality is in the 0.2% fatality rate.

Assuming the USA has 350M people, then 0.2% of that is 700K anecdotes.

What's "staggering" is you can't comprehend a simple mathematical reality.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:02:04 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's not staggering at all when you understand that facts and logic are
> an anathema to Andy.

Steve,

Are you seriously claiming that the fatality rate in the USA is not 0.2%?

If so, that proves you are an idiot because only an idiot would deny facts.
(that's _why_ you're an idiot, Steve).

And are you seriously claiming that the fatality rate for children isn't two
full orders of magnitude _less_ than that, Steve?
--
If you deny facts simply because you don't like them, you'd be an idiot.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:37:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at different
> times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
> are not the same thing.

Chris,
I know you (and nospam) love to play the "you said this" game, so let's
start fresh with the information you learned when you ran the search.

What did _you_ find out for the percentage of people in the population at
large who, when infected with SARS-CoV2, show absolutely zero symptoms?

> An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does (very
> effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.

Talking to you is like talking to a kindergarten kid sometimes, Chris.

Again I have to ask you what _you_ found out when you looked up the facts?

What did _you_ find the percentage to be of people in the population who are
infected by the SARS-CoV2 virus who don't even _know_ that they're infected?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:49:18 -0800, sms wrote:

> In fact, one of the problems with the vaccine is that many people are
> infected without knowing it because the vaccine has resulted in them
> being asymptomatic.

Idiot.

We're talking about people who haven't gotten the shot, Steve.

Learn to read.

> Those that are infected, but without symptoms, can
> unknowingly spread the virus because they are not self-quarantining.

Duh.

What's interesting is that people like Steve (who is like most people), who
have _zero_ training in this stuff, feel qualified (somehow?) to _force_
others to do what they do (out of their own fears and ignorance).

> In
> some cases they become aware that they are infected when they are tested
> in preparation for some kind of surgery, either out-patient or
> in-patient, or when they are tested prior to traveling.

Duh.

This is why I posit that _testing_ is the most important focus for the
government Steve.

Not taking away people's rights to "my body my choice".

> The extent to which anti-vaxers will go to delude themselves is incredible.

The figures are from the CDC, Steve.

Why must Steve demonize the entire CDC just so he can "feel" like his
fear-based thought process stands a chance of making sense to him?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 07:02:17 +1100, 5tft wrote:

> I dont find it incredible, but it is certainly interesting how many
> are so stupid. And surprising that it is far more than who refuse
> to let their kids be vaccinated. Wonder why. Presumably because
> it is such a political shit fight in the US.

What percentage of kids died of Covid in the USA from October 2020 to
October 2021?

Do you even know?

No?

I didn't think so.

Idiot.

HINT: The chance of a kid NOT dying from Covid in the USA (aged 5-11) in
that year was 99.998% based pm the CDC's own publications in October 2021.

How can you force parents to have their kids vaccinated against something
that has a lower chance of happening than them dying from zillions of other
things that you're not bothering to force parents to vaccinate against?

What logic do you use for such preposterous ignorant math?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:59:55 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Interestingly, it's how I handle Apple facts that I hate.
>
> ftfy

Notice you have no _adult_ response to the facts, which remain facts.

Fatalities:
a. The fatality rate for adults in the USA is 0.2% overall.
b. The fatality rate for kids in the USA is two orders of magnitude lower.

Disease:
A. Most people who get Covid don't even realize they are infected.
B. All of them (essentially) can pass the disease on to others.

The fact you have to resort to kindergarten "ftfy" responses is indicative
that you have no _adult_ response to those facts which you happen to hate.
--
You do the same thing with facts about Apple products, nospam.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 22:14:14 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> a. The fatality rate for adults in the USA is 0.2% overall.

Ooops. Typo. The fatality rate for _everyone_ in the USA is 0.2% overall.

(Each age group has a _different_ tranched fatality rate.)

[Rod Speed]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote

No, it's even worse where they are coming from.

[joe]

On 2/1/2022 3:04 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> I'm a scientist. And an engineer. I know statistics.
>
> The fatality rate is 0.2% overall whether you like that fact or not.

Yet, currently 0.27% of the US population has died from Covid-19. This
would imply your 0.2% is wrong or cherry picked.

How do you explain this contradiction?

[sms]

Correct. To be more precise 0.2695% of the U.S. population has
officially died from Covid (888,000/329,500,000).

However 888,000 is almost certainly an undercount. There have been about
950,000 excess deaths in the U.S. since the pandemic began and there is
no explanation, other than Covid, for the difference between 888,000 and
950,000, so the actual percentage should be around 0.288%.

As to where he got 0.2%, where do you think? He made it up. He's not a
big fan of factual data!

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:06:21 -0800, sms wrote:

> As to where he got 0.2%, where do you think? He made it up. He's not a
> big fan of factual data!

Steve, you are an idiot.

You run an ad-hoc calculation based on what you estimate is the number of
reported deaths today and based on what you estimated the population is
today, and that comes out (predictably so) extremely close to the CDC
figures, and then you claim your own calculation is made-up bullshit?

WTF?

You have no _adult_ response to the fact the CDC figures are accurate.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:18:35 -0600, joe wrote:

>> The fatality rate is 0.2% overall whether you like that fact or not.
>
> Yet, currently 0.27% of the US population has died from Covid-19. This
> would imply your 0.2% is wrong or cherry picked.

Idiots.
You're _agreeing_ with me, and you don't even realize it.

That minor difference from the average changes the chance of not dying from
99.8% to 99.7%, which is the risk to any one person of dying from Covid.

Big fucking deal.

Do you idiots get the point that the chance of not dying is >99%?
Who cares if it's 99.8% or if it's 99.7% for God's sake (except you idiots).

For children, aged 5-11, between October & October 2020 & 2021 it's two
orders of magnitude _lower_ at a 99.998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.
<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>

If new numbers come in next month and that figure from the CDC moves from
0.002% to 0.0027% are you going to claim that that's a _big_ difference too?

The risk of not dying would go from 99.998% to 99.997% for heavens sake.

> How do you explain this contradiction?

You're _agreeing_ with the figures I've been giving (which came from the
CDC), and you don't even realize you agree with me, you're _that_ stupid?

Is this Alan Baker posing as "joe" because that's a stupid question that
someone with an IQ around 40 with a first grade reading level would ask.

Every paper will give a slightly different value even when they look at the
same figures for a crude mortality rate (which is what we're talking about).
*Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator*: crude mortality, case fatality,
and infection fatality rates influence policy preferences, behaviour,
and understanding
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-01032-0>

Are you seriously claiming a risk of 99.8% versus 99.7% is significant when
any one person is weighing what the risk of dying from Covid is to them?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 02:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> You're _agreeing_ with me, and you don't even realize it.
>
> That minor difference from the average changes the chance of not dying from
> 99.8% to 99.7%, which is the risk to any one person of dying from Covid.

Ooops. _not_ dying.

That minor difference from the average changes the chance of not dying from

99.8% to 99.7% which is the risk to any one person of _not_ dying from Covid.

What's shocking is you idiots are _agreeing_ with the figures (by two
different methods where Steve ran the numbers himself) and you don't even
realize it.

You're _looking_ for holes and yet you are _agreeing_ with the numbers.

Idiots.

[Alan]

On 2022-02-01 12:42 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> That explains a lot. Come back when you have a degree in something
>> biological.
>
> Idiot.
>
> I have _multiple_ higher degrees, Chris.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Medical Instrumentation
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Starting with vacuum tubes
> <https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
> <https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
> <https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
> <https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
> <https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
> <https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno
>
> What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?

Prove you have any degree.

>
>> Much of biology, especially molecular biology, is probabilistic. Not
>> deterministic like engineering.
>
> Idiot.
>
> I _know_ more about microbiology, virology, genetics, biochemistry,
> parasitology, mycology, etc. than you'll ever know, you idiot.

>
>> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
>> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
>> very likely. Or reduce significantly.
>

> I have my name on published peer-reviewed biological papers, Chris.
> (I wasn't the principle author though.)

Cite, please!

>
>> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
>> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.
>

> The one thing I can do, Chris, that you can't do, is I can comprehend facts.

>
>> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they respond -
>> sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
>> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
>> when or exactly how nor the impact.
>

> On that topic of mutation, most people are ignorant like you are Chris, in
> that they don't realize RNA viruses mutate. That's what they do.
>
> For reason probably unknown to you, DNA mutations are less frequent than RNA
> and this is an RNA virus (although the adenovirus used in the shots isn't).
>
> I've read a few papers on the mutations, where my assessment is twofold:
> a. The mutations that _matter_ are actually rather rare for SARC-CoV2
> b. However the RNA ball is fantastically huge so mutations _will_ happen

>
>> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some imparted
>> force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
>> your arm off.
>

> Do you want to see my Physics, Calculus, Trig & Stats books too?
> (they're the underlying stuff).

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:06:21 -0800, sms wrote:

What I find revealing is that Steve _agrees_ with the figures I quoted, and
yet, Steve is _desperate_ to find some hidden unseen hole because he hates
what the facts revealed to him when he, himself, ran the math.

Realistically, while Steve doesn't even realize he's agreeing with the
figures, any given set of numbers will differ in multiple ways, but if
they're quoting similar figures, they won't differ significantly if they're
accurately compiled.

For example, this is dated January 26, 2022 and the number is "close" to
Steve's number of the total deaths in the USA due to Covid.
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/>
"Between the beginning of January 2020 and January 26, 2022
864,261 deaths were caused by COVID-19 in the United States."

Certainly I wouldn't claim what both Steve and the moron "joe" claimed given
the difference between Steve's 888,000 & that 864,261 is in the noise level.

Likewise with Steve's estimate of the US population at 329,500,000, where
this US Census government clock shows 332,473,380 as of this very moment.
<https://www.census.gov/popclock/>

Using _those_ numbers, we get 0.26%, which simply means that the chance of
_not_ dying from Covid for any one person in the USA is over 99%.

For those who believe in false significant figures, that's 99.74%
(versus the 99.8% that I previously quoted, the difference being nothing).

For children, aged 5-11, between October & October 2020 & 2021 it's two
orders of magnitude _lower_ at a 99.998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.

<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>

If new numbers come in next month and that figure from the CDC moves from
0.002% to 0.0027% are you going to claim that that's a _big_ difference too?

The risk of not dying would go from 99.998% to 99.997% for heavens sake.

--
It's revealing that they're so desperate to disagree with the facts that
their own calculations reveal to them that the facts are correct, and yet,
they're so stupid they don't even realize it - even when it happens right in
front of them.

[Alan]

On 2022-02-01 12:58 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:36:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
>> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
>> whether to vaccinate or not.
>
> It's because we have basic human rights.
>
> One of those basic human rights can be summarized as:
> My body, My choice
>
> Do you know that most people are innately immune to Covid?

No. Because that isn't actually a fact.

> Do you know the fatality rate is 0.2% overall?

There are about 8 BILLION people on the planet, so that's 160 MILLION
deaths...

...IF everyone gets the care that the US can give.

[Alan]

People living in abject poverty.

How many Canadians do you think try to illegally emigrate to the US each
year, huh?

[Your Name]

So now you can imagine how bad their normal daily life must be where
they come from that they'd prefer to move to a country full of idiots
and loonies. :-p

[nospam]

In article <stctc4$13cb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-02-01 12:42 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?
>
> Prove you have any degree.

he has photos of books. really old books. none of this new-age shit.
isn't that sufficient? :)

[Andy Burnelli]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 23:30:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> On 2022-02-01 12:42 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?
>>
>> Prove you have any degree.
>
> he has photos of books. really old books. none of this new-age shit.
> isn't that sufficient? :)

*What degrees do YOU have, nospam and Chris?*

I asked before, and I'll ask again the salient question:
1. nospam - Do you even _have_ a college degree and in what?
2. Chris - Do you even have a college degree, and in what?
3. Alan Baker - Do you even have a high school GED?

The fact that Steve and I let you know what degrees we have, and yet, you
three probably barely have a high school diploma is obvious from your lack
of response.

What degrees do YOU have, nospam and Chris?
And in what?
--
Forget Alan Baker as it's clear he likely never graduated high school.

[Alan]

On 2022-02-01 8:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 23:30:42 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> On 2022-02-01 12:42 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?
>>>
>>> Prove you have any degree.
>>
>> he has photos of books. really old books. none of this new-age shit.
>> isn't that sufficient? :)
>
> *What degrees do YOU have, nospam and Chris?*

What degrees do YOU have first, Arlen?

>
> I asked before, and I'll ask again the salient question:
> 1. nospam - Do you even _have_ a college degree and in what?
> 2. Chris - Do you even have a college degree, and in what?
> 3. Alan Baker - Do you even have a high school GED?
>
> The fact that Steve and I let you know what degrees we have, and yet, you

You let us see a claim...

[Rod Speed]

Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote
> AJL wrote

>> Your Name wrote

>>> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid,
>>> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to
>>> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a
>>> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles,
>>> religions), use their own spellings and definitions for "English"
>>> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue
>>> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead morons to be
>>> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and military into other
>>> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.
>> And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with illegals wanting
>> to
>> live here. Strange, huh...

> People living in abject poverty.

Plenty of them dont live in abject poverty and fly in to the USA