https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-vaccines-fueling-new-covid-variants-xbb-northeast-antibodies-mutation-strain-immune-imprinting-11672483618?mod=djemalertNEWS
"Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of
getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as
likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received
two were only 2.6 times as likely.
“This is not the only study to find a possible association with more
prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted.
“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19
vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is
important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time
may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”
Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness,
particularly among the elderly and those with health risks like
diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters
have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals
and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like
XBB."
On 1/3/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-vaccines-fueling-new-covid-variants-xbb-northeast-antibodies-mutation-strain-immune-imprinting-11672483618?mod=djemalertNEWS
That's the opinion page and the author. who is not a medical expert, has made discredited claims in the past:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fiction/
"Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times asClassic base rate fallacy.
likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received
two were only 2.6 times as likely.
“This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted. “We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time
may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”
Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness, particularly among the elderly and those with health risks likeNew variants are due to spread.
diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters
have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals
and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like
XBB."
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/3/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-vaccines-fueling-new-covid-variants-xbb-northeast-antibodies-mutation-strain-immune-imprinting-11672483618?mod=djemalertNEWS
That's the opinion page and the author. who is not a medical expert, has
made discredited claims in the past:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fiction/
"Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk ofClassic base rate fallacy.
getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as
likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received
two were only 2.6 times as likely.
“This is not the only study to find a possible association with moreNew variants are due to spread.
prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted.
“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19
vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is
important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time
may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”
Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness,
particularly among the elderly and those with health risks like
diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters
have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals
and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like
XBB."
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can lead to more spread.
You are denying science.
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/3/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-vaccines-fueling-new-covid-variants-xbb-northeast-antibodies-mutation-strain-immune-imprinting-11672483618?mod=djemalertNEWS
That's the opinion page and the author. who is not a medical expert, has >> made discredited claims in the past:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/fiction/
"Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk ofClassic base rate fallacy.
getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as
likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received
two were only 2.6 times as likely.
“This is not the only study to find a possible association with more >>> prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted. >>> “We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19New variants are due to spread.
vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is
important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time
may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.” >>>
Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness,
particularly among the elderly and those with health risks like
diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters
have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals
and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like
XBB."
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can lead to more spread.WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce
You are denying science.
spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation standards.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109
WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduceNew variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity
and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire
for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunityExcept there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be inconvenienced.
and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire
for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity
and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire
for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be
inconvenienced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity
and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire
for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be
inconvenienced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
cynical and unscientific.
There's no reason for a virus to be less
virulent so long as it can replicate and spread.
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less >>>> severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce >>>>>> spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity
and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire >>>>> for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
inconvenienced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.
cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?
GMAFB....if you're play the only believe the holy and righteous
card you better be consistent.
Then again...as a cynic I sense you might be left with nothing to believe.
There's no reason for a virus to be less
virulent so long as it can replicate and spread.
Perhaps you can't recognize the inverse relationship between
virulence and spread...but science, history, and logic tell us it is real.
On 1/7/23 7:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less >>>> severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be >>>> inconvenienced.
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce >>>>>> spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can
lead to more spread. You are denying science.
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity >>>>> and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire >>>>> for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.
cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?I didn't mention their financial interests.
GMAFB....if you're play the only believe the holy and righteousNot to worry: you'll never run out of strawmen.
card you better be consistent.
Then again...as a cynic I sense you might be left with nothing to believe.
There's no reason for a virus to be less
virulent so long as it can replicate and spread.
Perhaps you can't recognize the inverse relationship betweenDidn't follow the link, I see. From above:
virulence and spread...but science, history, and logic tell us it is real.
As evidence mounts that the omicron variant is less deadly than prior COVID-19 strains, one oft-cited explanation is that viruses always
evolve to become less virulent over time.
The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly debunked.
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:15:33 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:I didn't mention their financial interests.
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less >>>>>> severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be >>>>>> inconvenienced.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce >>>>>>>> spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can >>>>>>>>> lead to more spread. You are denying science.
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity >>>>>>> and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire >>>>>>> for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.
cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?
LOL....
GMAFB....if you're play the only believe the holy and righteous
card you better be consistent.
Then again...as a cynic I sense you might be left with nothing to believe. >> Not to worry: you'll never run out of strawmen.
There's no reason for a virus to be less
virulent so long as it can replicate and spread.
Perhaps you can't recognize the inverse relationship between
virulence and spread...but science, history, and logic tell us it is real. >> Didn't follow the link, I see. From above:
As evidence mounts that the omicron variant is less deadly than prior
COVID-19 strains, one oft-cited explanation is that viruses always
evolve to become less virulent over time.
The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.
On 1/9/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:15:33 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:I didn't mention their financial interests.
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial interests" is
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood variants will be less >>>>>> severe. That's just wishful thinking from people who don't want to be >>>>>> inconvenienced.
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 >>>>>>>>>> New variants are due to spread.WSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you want to reduce >>>>>>>> spread, encourage masking and improve building ventilation
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they actually can >>>>>>>>> lead to more spread. You are denying science.
standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread creates immunity >>>>>>> and variants diminish severity. The pandemic is over and your desire >>>>>>> for emergency authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
Not true.
cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?
LOL....I simply showed where they were spending their money. My disagreement is
with their disregard for truth and science.
GMAFB....if you're play the only believe the holy and righteousNot to worry: you'll never run out of strawmen.
card you better be consistent.
Then again...as a cynic I sense you might be left with nothing to believe.
Didn't follow the link, I see. From above:There's no reason for a virus to be less
virulent so long as it can replicate and spread.
Perhaps you can't recognize the inverse relationship between
virulence and spread...but science, history, and logic tell us it is real.
As evidence mounts that the omicron variant is less deadly than prior
COVID-19 strains, one oft-cited explanation is that viruses always
evolve to become less virulent over time.
The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.You snipped the link where you would have found this:
"This paper first analyzes Theobald Smith's conception of disease, his experimental work on Texas cattle fever, and his formulation of the "law
of declining virulence." The following sections then trace the legacy of
this model of disease evolution from circa 1900 to its widespread
acceptance in the mid-twentieth century and until its downfall in the
1980s. Particular attention is given to the case of the myxoma virus and
how it acted as an empirical confirmation of Smith's model in the 1950s. Finally, the paper examines both significant empirical and theoretical challenges to the avirulence model. The present study not only fills a
gap in the history of disease transmission and ecology but also sheds
light on the intermingled relationship between bacteriology,
evolutionary biology, and public health in the past century."
No worries, there's more:
https://gettotext.com/the-evolution-towards-less-virulence-is-a-persistent-myth-in-virology/
"This is one of the persistent myths in virology. It starts from the
premise that the less a virus kills, the more it survives in the
population. In reality, many viruses are transmitted intensely before
killing their hosts, because the severe forms of the disease and death
occur late in the infection process. This is the case for the SARS-CoV-2 virus as for other viruses, such as the influenza virus or the HIV
virus, for which several years separate contagion from the onset of
symptoms. And, as with all living entities, selection pressure is
exerted on the ability of the virus to reproduce, and therefore to be transmitted in the case of viruses."
More scientifically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00722-z
"The comparatively milder infections with the Omicron variant and higher levels of population immunity have raised hopes for a weakening of the pandemic. We argue that the lower severity of Omicron is a coincidence
and that ongoing rapid antigenic evolution is likely to produce new
variants that may escape immunity and be more severe."
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Not true.
On 1/9/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:15:33 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8,Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood
MINe109 wrote:
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AMWSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you
UTC-8, MINe109
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they
actually can lead to more spread. You are denying
science.
want to reduce spread, encourage masking and
improve building ventilation standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread
creates immunity and variants diminish severity. The
pandemic is over and your desire for emergency
authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
variants will be less severe. That's just wishful
thinking from people who don't want to be
inconvenienced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
I simply showed where they were spending their money. MyI didn't mention their financial interests.No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial
interests" is cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?
LOL....
disagreement is with their disregard for truth and science.
As someone with zero knowledge of science and an extreme insecurity
in their own ability to recognize truth from misinformation....one
wonders how you can know?
You always like whatever society has declared as the liberal or
democrat back pov. No matter what.
I'll point to your recent support of illegal suppression of people's
freedom of speech as example.
"This is one of the persistent myths in virology..."You snipped the link where you would have found this:The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly
debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.
"This paper first analyzes Theobald Smith's conception of disease,
his experimental work on Texas cattle fever, and his formulation of
the "law of declining virulence." The following sections then trace
the legacy of this model of disease evolution from circa 1900 to
its widespread acceptance in the mid-twentieth century and until
its downfall in the 1980s..."
No worries, there's more:
https://gettotext.com/the-evolution-towards-less-virulence-is-a-persistent-myth-in-virology/
More scientifically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00722-z
"The comparatively milder infections with the Omicron variant and
higher levels of population immunity have raised hopes for a
weakening of the pandemic. We argue that the lower severity of
Omicron is a coincidence and that ongoing rapid antigenic evolution
is likely to produce new variants that may escape immunity and be
more severe."
But reality is exactly the opposite.
So all these "keep people scared" stuff so we can get more funding is
losing credibility. Show me one variant of covid that became dominant
and had increased rate of mortality. Just one. Covid is considered extremely prone to mutation and yet we haven't managed even one
strain yet that comes close to your fear mongering. Not one.
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Not true.
On 1/9/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:15:33 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/7/23 7:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:23:49 AM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
On 1/5/23 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:39:56 AM UTC-8,Except there's no guarantee or even a likelihood
MINe109 wrote:
On 1/4/23 12:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 8:14:46 AMWSJ op-ed articles are not science. However, if you
UTC-8, MINe109
New variants are due to spread.
Vaxx do nothing for that and now it appears they
actually can lead to more spread. You are denying
science.
want to reduce spread, encourage masking and
improve building ventilation standards.
For normal healthy people, I really don't. Spread
creates immunity and variants diminish severity. The
pandemic is over and your desire for emergency
authority to safe your sorry ass is kaput.
variants will be less severe. That's just wishful
thinking from people who don't want to be
inconvenienced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/debunking-idea-viruses-evolve-virulent/story?id=82052581
I simply showed where they were spending their money. MyI didn't mention their financial interests.No, dismissing conflicting views as due to "financial
interests" is cynical and unscientific.
Didn't you just do that to the Koch Brothers?
LOL....
disagreement is with their disregard for truth and science.
As someone with zero knowledge of science and an extreme insecurity
in their own ability to recognize truth from misinformation....one
wonders how you can know?
You always like whatever society has declared as the liberal orThat's kind of a global argument, and one that depends on you not
democrat back pov. No matter what.
bothering to keep track of what I actually say.
I'll point to your recent support of illegal suppression of people's freedom of speech as example.If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in fact.
"This is one of the persistent myths in virology..."You snipped the link where you would have found this:The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly
debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.
"This paper first analyzes Theobald Smith's conception of disease,
his experimental work on Texas cattle fever, and his formulation of
the "law of declining virulence." The following sections then trace
the legacy of this model of disease evolution from circa 1900 to
its widespread acceptance in the mid-twentieth century and until
its downfall in the 1980s..."
No worries, there's more:
https://gettotext.com/the-evolution-towards-less-virulence-is-a-persistent-myth-in-virology/
More scientifically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00722-z
"The comparatively milder infections with the Omicron variant and
higher levels of population immunity have raised hopes for a
weakening of the pandemic. We argue that the lower severity of
Omicron is a coincidence and that ongoing rapid antigenic evolution
is likely to produce new variants that may escape immunity and be
more severe."
But reality is exactly the opposite.That's why we have science, to get past surface appearances. Omicron
less deadly? Great! Doesn't prove your contention.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to investigate?
"This is one of the persistent myths in virology..."You snipped the link where you would have found this:The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly
debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.
"This paper first analyzes Theobald Smith's conception of disease,
his experimental work on Texas cattle fever, and his formulation of
the "law of declining virulence." The following sections then trace
the legacy of this model of disease evolution from circa 1900 to
its widespread acceptance in the mid-twentieth century and until
its downfall in the 1980s..."
No worries, there's more:
https://gettotext.com/the-evolution-towards-less-virulence-is-a-persistent-myth-in-virology/
That's why we have science, to get past surface appearances. Omicron
More scientifically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00722-z
"The comparatively milder infections with the Omicron variant and
higher levels of population immunity have raised hopes for a
weakening of the pandemic. We argue that the lower severity of
Omicron is a coincidence and that ongoing rapid antigenic evolution
is likely to produce new variants that may escape immunity and be
more severe."
But reality is exactly the opposite.
less deadly? Great! Doesn't prove your contention.
It's just another example in what's becoming a line of examples.
Last I read is China is now the cauldron of mutation due to lack of immunity from years of lockdown.
BTW....you don't seem to think Joe's Trumpish travel restrictions are xenophobic.
Funny how that works.
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to investigate?No. Such an investigation will be a circus
in which ordinary actions
will be mischaracterized for political effect like the IRS hearings of
the past.
"This is one of the persistent myths in virology..."You snipped the link where you would have found this:The problem, experts say, is that this theory has been soundly
debunked.
Except it hasn't been debunked.
"This paper first analyzes Theobald Smith's conception of disease,
his experimental work on Texas cattle fever, and his formulation of
the "law of declining virulence." The following sections then trace
the legacy of this model of disease evolution from circa 1900 to
its widespread acceptance in the mid-twentieth century and until
its downfall in the 1980s..."
No worries, there's more:
https://gettotext.com/the-evolution-towards-less-virulence-is-a-persistent-myth-in-virology/
That's why we have science, to get past surface appearances. Omicron
More scientifically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00722-z
"The comparatively milder infections with the Omicron variant and
higher levels of population immunity have raised hopes for a
weakening of the pandemic. We argue that the lower severity of
Omicron is a coincidence and that ongoing rapid antigenic evolution
is likely to produce new variants that may escape immunity and be
more severe."
But reality is exactly the opposite.
less deadly? Great! Doesn't prove your contention.
It's just another example in what's becoming a line of examples.Doesn't matter. It's not the correct and accepted view.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...
but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which would
indicate you don't care.
Doesn't matter. It's not the correct and accepted view.But reality is exactly the opposite.That's why we have science, to get past surface appearances.
Omicron less deadly? Great! Doesn't prove your contention.
It's just another example in what's becoming a line of examples.
LoL....Now we need to be "accepted" to be correct.
You are a lemming.
Doesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside requests as you just showed it does in another post.Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
On 1/10/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...Yes, I do, based on past performance of Republican congress members.
but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which wouldDoesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside
indicate you don't care.
requests as you just showed it does in another post.
Shmoos gotta Shmoo.
Doesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside requests as you just showed it does in another post.Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
<RAT-A-TAT-TAT!> Hello in the bunker! Anyone home?
Go ahead and identify the "law" that bans "the gov't" from asking
someone to censor. We can wait while you, ahem, "research" it.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Yes, I do, based on past performance of Republican congress members.
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...
but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which wouldDoesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside
indicate you don't care.
requests as you just showed it does in another post.
Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
Doesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside requests as you just showed it does in another post.Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
<RAT-A-TAT-TAT!> Hello in the bunker! Anyone home?
Go ahead and identify the "law" that bans "the gov't" from askingThat took me all of two seconds. Its not a law, it's the First Amendment
someone to censor. We can wait while you, ahem, "research" it.
On 1/10/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Yes, I do, based on past performance of Republican congress members.
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...
but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which wouldDoesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside
indicate you don't care.
requests as you just showed it does in another post.
Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.It's not illegal make moderation requests but it is illegal to post
false voting information.
It's not illegal make moderation requests but it is illegal to postWhat is a "moderation request"? Oh yeah, censorship.
false voting information.
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:43:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's not illegal make moderation requests but it is illegal to post
On 1/10/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Yes, I do, based on past performance of Republican congress members.
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...
but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which wouldDoesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside
indicate you don't care.
requests as you just showed it does in another post.
Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
false voting information.
What is a "moderation request"? Oh yeah, censorship.
On 1/11/23 5:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:43:18 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/10/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's not illegal make moderation requests but it is illegal to post
On 1/10/23 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Yes, I do, based on past performance of Republican congress members. >>>>> but then you have nothing to protect peoples rights which would
On 1/10/23 11:09 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:53:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 7:41 PM, ScottW wrote:No. Such an investigation will be a circus
If you mean Musk's Twitter, you're wrong in framing and in
fact.
So do tell. Do you support the formation of a committee to
investigate?
You presume it will...
indicate you don't care.Doesn't follow. Twitter is a private company free to reject outside
requests as you just showed it does in another post.
Twitter isn't breaking the law...it's the gov't illegally asking them to censor.
false voting information.
What is a "moderation request"? Oh yeah, censorship.No, actually. The request carries no power
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:02:03 |
| Calls: | 9,670 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,719 |
| Messages: | 6,170,073 |