Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 eaglesdare  10 Jun 23 11.58pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Where is the evidence from these companies that these vaccines ever effectively stopped transmission as, if I remember correctly, we was stated in Congress that this testing wasn't actually carried out. But if it's proven to me that the original vaccines effectively reduced transmission of the original virus then I'll accept that point. However an AI program isn't evidence. My thoughts precisely. The likes of pzifer admitted they never tested on transmissions. So how in the world did the "experts" and politicians come to the conclusion that it stopped transmissions? They lied. Simply as.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 11 Jun 23 1.50am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
My thoughts precisely. The likes of pzifer admitted they never tested on transmissions. So how in the world did the "experts" and politicians come to the conclusion that it stopped transmissions? They lied. Simply as. There was a lot of dodgey stuff going on. David Davies has been talking about it in parliament. Here's Wisbech's favourite commentator Dr John Campbell on it. Oh and the highly respected David Davies, former cabinet member, leadership contender and Tory steward....former scientist and SAS member as well has been a guest on Campbell's show several times now and is down for a further appearance according to Campbell. Lots of highly respected people within the medical field have also been on Campbell's show. But apparently according to Wisbech Campbell is discredited.....funny that. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Jun 2023 1.56am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jun 23 10.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Where is the evidence from these companies that these vaccines ever effectively stopped transmission as, if I remember correctly, what was stated in Congress that this testing wasn't actually carried out. But if it's proven to me that the original vaccines effectively reduced transmission of the original virus then I'll accept that point. However an AI program isn't evidence. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Jun 2023 1.51am) I don't think that specific testing of the direct impact of transmissibility was carried out prior to the release of the vaccines. Why would there be? Their efficacy in training our immune system to recognise and deal with the virus was established, alongside their safety, and there was a pressing need to roll them out asap. Why delay to test something that was a side issue but theoretically established anyway? Anything that broke the chain of transmission stopped transmission. Not every transmission, but some. That included social distancing, lockdowns, mask-wearing and then the vaccines. If a vaccinated person, even if infected, shows fewer symptoms, they have a lower capacity to pass it on. Thus vaccines effectively reduce transmission. This fuss about the vaccines' capacity to stop transmission is a complete red herring tossed into the pot by those with a political agenda. I wondered how long it would be before you started to attack ChatGPT. No comment from you, me or an AI bot is evidence. The advantage an AI bot has is that it can source evidence and reject non-evidence. It can check authenticity and reliability and screen out misinformation from information. The next thing I expect to hear is that ChatGPT has a political bias!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jun 23 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Vaccines never stopped transmissions. Fact. Over 90 percent of people maybe 99 percent of people had mild symptoms. Surely your lord and master sleepy joe was right that getting the covid vaccine stopped transmissions? Surely this was a fact? At the end of the day in terms of covid it's only a fact if it fits an agenda. Whatever comes out after is just covering one's own backside. Oh we didint know... The science evolved. Absolute BS. Just trying to justify or the old "we were just following orders" at the time. It's not a fact. Fact! Anything that broke the chain of transmission stopped transmissions. Not every transmission, but enough. That's how herd immunity eventually works. The vaccines did that by reducing symptoms. Less coughing and sneezing equals less virus to infect others. Less virus, less transmission. Socially distance, less transmission. Stay at home, away from others, less transmission. The science did evolve. It always does. It's what science does. We learned, we modified and improved. Those with the ability to accept we don't know everything listened to those who know more. Those who think they know better didn't. And still don't.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  11 Jun 23 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't think that specific testing of the direct impact of transmissibility was carried out prior to the release of the vaccines. Why would there be? Their efficacy in training our immune system to recognise and deal with the virus was established, alongside their safety, and there was a pressing need to roll them out asap. Why delay to test something that was a side issue but theoretically established anyway? Anything that broke the chain of transmission stopped transmission. Not every transmission, but some. That included social distancing, lockdowns, mask-wearing and then the vaccines. If a vaccinated person, even if infected, shows fewer symptoms, they have a lower capacity to pass it on. Thus vaccines effectively reduce transmission. This fuss about the vaccines' capacity to stop transmission is a complete red herring tossed into the pot by those with a political agenda. I wondered how long it would be before you started to attack ChatGPT. No comment from you, me or an AI bot is evidence. The advantage an AI bot has is that it can source evidence and reject non-evidence. It can check authenticity and reliability and screen out misinformation from information. The next thing I expect to hear is that ChatGPT has a political bias!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jun 23 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There was a lot of dodgey stuff going on. David Davies has been talking about it in parliament. Here's Wisbech's favourite commentator Dr John Campbell on it. Oh and the highly respected David Davies, former cabinet member, leadership contender and Tory steward....former scientist and SAS member as well has been a guest on Campbell's show several times now and is down for a further appearance according to Campbell. Lots of highly respected people within the medical field have also been on Campbell's show. But apparently according to Wisbech Campbell is discredited.....funny that. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Jun 2023 1.56am) When a discredited YouTuber like Campbell refers to something said by someone like David Davies on this subject the bs antenna starts to pick up strong signals. It seems that the claims he made are themselves discredited and only part of a familiar pattern of such claims. Many of which are repeated by Campbell, for his own dubious purposes.
"Lack of specialization: Critics argue that Dr. Campbell's background as a nurse and educator does not necessarily make him an expert in all the topics he covers. They believe that his content sometimes lacks the depth and specificity that experts in particular fields can provide. Oversimplification and sensationalism: Some critics suggest that Dr. Campbell tends to oversimplify complex medical and scientific concepts in his videos, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of information. They argue that this oversimplification can result in sensationalism or the spreading of inaccurate or misleading information. Alternative treatments and supplements: Dr. Campbell has occasionally discussed or promoted alternative treatments or supplements that lack strong scientific evidence or consensus support. Critics argue that this can give a platform to unproven or potentially harmful interventions, leading to confusion among viewers seeking evidence-based medical advice. Handling of scientific studies: Critics have raised concerns about Dr. Campbell's interpretation and presentation of scientific studies. They claim that he may cherry-pick studies that support his narrative or fail to provide a balanced analysis by considering the full body of evidence. Self-promotion and conflicts of interest: Some critics argue that Dr. Campbell's online presence and monetization of his content may influence the information he provides or lead to conflicts of interest. They question whether his motivations may prioritize popularity or financial gain over accuracy or objective analysis."
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jun 23 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Did you read the link? It's interesting but it doesn't suggest a political bias at all. It suggests that AI, because it uses human sources, is also prone to human biases. Both positive and negative. About such things as race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. Political bias is not mentioned. It's interesting because it identifies how it can be improved.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Jun 23 1.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Did you read the link? It's interesting but it doesn't suggest a political bias at all. It suggests that AI, because it uses human sources, is also prone to human biases. Both positive and negative. About such things as race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. Political bias is not mentioned. It's interesting because it identifies how it can be improved. Any information coming out is dependent on the information made available and how it's configured. Political basis obviously possible to achieve if desired.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jun 23 1.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Any information coming out is dependent on the information made available and how it's configured. Political basis obviously possible to achieve if desired. Chat bots don't have desires.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 11 Jun 23 1.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's not a fact. Fact! Anything that broke the chain of transmission stopped transmissions. Not every transmission, but enough. That's how herd immunity eventually works. The vaccines did that by reducing symptoms. Less coughing and sneezing equals less virus to infect others. Less virus, less transmission. Socially distance, less transmission. Stay at home, away from others, less transmission. The science did evolve. It always does. It's what science does. We learned, we modified and improved. Those with the ability to accept we don't know everything listened to those who know more. Those who think they know better didn't. And still don't. Vaccines do not stop transmissions. Sleepy Joe was a liar and provided misinformation to the public about a vaccine that was never tested on transmissions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Jun 23 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Chat bots don't have desires. But the people who build and configure them have. As do those who interpret what they say.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Jun 23 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
When a discredited YouTuber like Campbell refers to something said by someone like David Davies on this subject the bs antenna starts to pick up strong signals. It seems that the claims he made are themselves discredited and only part of a familiar pattern of such claims. Many of which are repeated by Campbell, for his own dubious purposes.
"Lack of specialization: Critics argue that Dr. Campbell's background as a nurse and educator does not necessarily make him an expert in all the topics he covers. They believe that his content sometimes lacks the depth and specificity that experts in particular fields can provide. Oversimplification and sensationalism: Some critics suggest that Dr. Campbell tends to oversimplify complex medical and scientific concepts in his videos, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of information. They argue that this oversimplification can result in sensationalism or the spreading of inaccurate or misleading information. Alternative treatments and supplements: Dr. Campbell has occasionally discussed or promoted alternative treatments or supplements that lack strong scientific evidence or consensus support. Critics argue that this can give a platform to unproven or potentially harmful interventions, leading to confusion among viewers seeking evidence-based medical advice. Handling of scientific studies: Critics have raised concerns about Dr. Campbell's interpretation and presentation of scientific studies. They claim that he may cherry-pick studies that support his narrative or fail to provide a balanced analysis by considering the full body of evidence. Self-promotion and conflicts of interest: Some critics argue that Dr. Campbell's online presence and monetization of his content may influence the information he provides or lead to conflicts of interest. They question whether his motivations may prioritize popularity or financial gain over accuracy or objective analysis." We will see who is 'discredited' here. Campbell is supported by many powerful and highly qualified people. There is a lot of money and power interests waged against him. You choose to believe them....we will see where the truth resides. You represent Campbell like he's some sort of criminal when he's helped people all his life (unlike you) and continues to do so. You on the other hand are a second hand opinion merchant who just enjoys confrontation on the Internet.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.