Slate tries to debunk “dies suddenly;” fails miserably then calls for a police state

[Joe Ferguson forever]

19 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

What part of read the study yourself and then provide scientific criticism didn't you understand ?

what part of conflict of interests do you not understand?  It's a study whose data has been questioned by multiple respected experts in the field and its conclusions are of little to no consequence to clinical or  population medicine.  Did bhat's proposed local prevalence estimates lead to a prediction of 1 million US deaths (or 3 million without widespread vaxing)?  Did he quote those numbers, based on his insignificant study , in his "declaration"?  Why would I waste my time?  Wondering the same about debating you.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Gene Frenkle]

14 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Like you, I am a man of science. When the numbers looked good out of Israel, I took the shot of my own free will, not because I was told to or so that I could prove my bravery (thanks again for your heroism). Once the numbers turned to sh*t and it was clear the miracle vax was less than miraculous, I combined my love of science with common sense and decided not to bother. You instead appear to prefer lining up behind the Walensky’s, Maddow’s and Stelter’s of the world. Now that’s brave!!

 

Carry on vaccine warrior! Somebody has to do what they are told. 

 

Don't worry your pretty little head. We got this.

[JaCrispy]

On 2/10/2023 at 7:21 PM, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Nope! Not even. Anti-vaxxers are as soft as 10-ply Charmin.

 

They live their lives scared: frightened of boogiemen, frightened of science, frightened of people who are different, and frightened of change.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

 

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.

In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer.

 

This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias.” If you think about it, this makes sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. To many conservatives, the world may look like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in fear—fear of the president, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.

 

2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.

A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views?

 

One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.

 

3. Conservatives fear new experiences.

A 2008 study cataloged items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies.

 

This suggests that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, may prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they can be resistant to change and progressive policies.

 

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and it's especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. Maybe if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times, it wouldn’t matter whether they existed or not.

 

Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas by using tactics like fear-mongering.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

I agree with some of this, as much of it is common sense, and has been known for quite some time…

 

From what I get from this article, conservatives are more logical, ordered, and disciplined- while liberals and progressives are more emotional, and open to change…

 

With regards to science, I feel some low educated conservatives resist science- but I also feel the same way about low educated liberals/progressives…

 

Both sides tend to share similar qualities, but for different reasons…Thus is why it is so important to have a balance between the two (I say this all the time)…

 

Both sides are susceptible to cult like behavior if allowed to go unchecked…

 

Liberals/Progressives are needed for societal advancement, but conservatives are also need to make sure society doesn’t go off a cliff, in the process…👍

[ChiGoose]

Seems like this all boils down to a choice:

 

1. Greatly protect yourself from severe harm while mitigating danger to those you care about around you. 
 

2. Risk everything on the assumption that you’re as healthy as you believe yourself to be and screw anybody else. 
 

Seems like an easy choice to me, but it looks like that makes me a minority here. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

I agree with some of this, as much of it is common sense, and has been known for quite some time…

 

From what I get from this article, conservatives are more logical, ordered, and disciplined- while liberals and progressives are more emotional, and open to change…

 

With regards to science, I feel some low educated conservatives resist science- but I also feel the same way about low educated liberals/progressives…

 

Both sides tend to share similar qualities, but for different reasons…Thus is why it is so important to have a balance between the two (I say this all the time)…

 

Both sides are susceptible to cult like behavior if allowed to go unchecked…

 

Liberals/Progressives are needed for societal advancement, but conservatives are also need to make sure society doesn’t go off a cliff, in the process…👍

read the article again....and I think it's a great oversimplification to pin the gun control issue on fear alone.  It's certainly a factor but so is the desire for armed revolt among a subset of conservatives.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Seems like this all boils down to a choice:

 

1. Greatly protect yourself from severe harm while mitigating danger to those you care about around you. 
 

2. Risk everything on the assumption that you’re as healthy as you believe yourself to be and screw anybody else. 
 

Seems like an easy choice to me, but it looks like that makes me a minority here. 

in other words, stupid and selfish.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

in other words, stupid and selfish.

So in you learned opinion 99.9% of the people at the Super Bowl this evening are both stupid and selfish? Okie Dokie 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Seems like this all boils down to a choice:

 

1. Greatly protect yourself from severe harm while mitigating danger to those you care about around you. 
 

2. Risk everything on the assumption that you’re as healthy as you believe yourself to be and screw anybody else. 
 

Seems like an easy choice to me, but it looks like that makes me a minority here. 

This is an oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex situation.  
 

One look at the behavior many insiders followed while preaching the “hunker down and stfu” mentality for everyone else rightly gives reason to pause and consider the righteousness of the order.   Watching tens of thousands of individuals gather from across the country at the height of the pandemic, with precious little pushback from people like Faucci and leaders in govt was extremely problematic.  
 

The simple reality is one can consider their own well-being, that of those around them and their fellow man, and choose not to vax/boost.  It took only a change in administrations and a few short months before the narrative changed, and many of the heroic souls who gutted it out and got vaxxed for the greater good suddenly weren’t so interested in vaxxing up for the 2nd time, or getting boosted. 
 

 

 

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is an oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex situation.  
 

One look at the behavior many insiders followed while preaching the “hunker down and stfu” mentality for everyone else rightly gives reason to pause and consider the righteousness of the order.   Watching tens of thousands of individuals gather from across the country at the height of the pandemic, with precious little pushback from people like Faucci and leaders in govt was extremely problematic.  
 

The simple reality is one can consider their own well-being, that of those around them and their fellow man, and choose not to vax/boost.  It took only a change in administrations and a few short months before the narrative changed, and many of the heroic souls who gutted it out and got vaxxed for the greater good suddenly weren’t so interested in vaxxing up for the 2nd time, or getting boosted. 
 

 

 

To quote our illustrious leader - Neanderthal thinking!!

[Joe Ferguson forever]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is an oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex situation.  
 

One look at the behavior many insiders followed while preaching the “hunker down and stfu” mentality for everyone else rightly gives reason to pause and consider the righteousness of the order.   Watching tens of thousands of individuals gather from across the country at the height of the pandemic, with precious little pushback from people like Faucci and leaders in govt was extremely problematic.  
 

The simple reality is one can consider their own well-being, that of those around them and their fellow man, and choose not to vax/boost.  It took only a change in administrations and a few short months before the narrative changed, and many of the heroic souls who gutted it out and got vaxxed for the greater good suddenly weren’t so interested in vaxxing up for the 2nd time, or getting boosted. 
 

 

 

only if they choose to completely ignore the overwhelming majority of the data and believe they are still correct despite what they just witnessed.

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

To quote our illustrious leader - Neanderthal thinking!!

And according to Goose and Redtail the entire US Congress (with the exception of Bernie of course) are ALL utterly selfish and stupid. Wait….they might be onto something there. 😂

[Joe Ferguson forever]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So in you learned opinion 99.9% of the people at the Super Bowl this evening are both stupid and selfish? Okie Dokie 

No.  Flattening the curve is still a bedrock principle of pandemic control.  the window for isolation has closed, for now.  The window for vaccination, unfortunately remains wide open.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

No.  Flattening the curve is still a bedrock principle of pandemic control.  the window for isolation has closed, for now.  The window for vaccination, unfortunately remains wide open.

So vaccines…yes? Masks….no? (Just trying to understand where you’re at on this.) 

[ChiGoose]

24 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is an oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex situation.  
 

One look at the behavior many insiders followed while preaching the “hunker down and stfu” mentality for everyone else rightly gives reason to pause and consider the righteousness of the order.   Watching tens of thousands of individuals gather from across the country at the height of the pandemic, with precious little pushback from people like Faucci and leaders in govt was extremely problematic.  
 

The simple reality is one can consider their own well-being, that of those around them and their fellow man, and choose not to vax/boost.  It took only a change in administrations and a few short months before the narrative changed, and many of the heroic souls who gutted it out and got vaxxed for the greater good suddenly weren’t so interested in vaxxing up for the 2nd time, or getting boosted. 
 

 

 

Incorrect

 

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And according to Goose and Redtail the entire US Congress (with the exception of Bernie of course) are ALL utterly selfish and stupid. Wait….they might be onto something there. 😂

Strawman

[Joe Ferguson forever]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So vaccines…yes? Masks….no? (Just trying to understand where you’re at on this.) 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9435423/

 

It is dependent on geographic prevalence. imo, for most vaxed individuals in most US areas, masking/distancing will have little effect on mortality.  It appears not to be the case in China for example, but we know little about the actual prevalence and death rate there.  I think it's fair to assume they are high given that I don't think China  desires to slow their own economy.  but vaccines, yes, around the globe (in the same way we still need polio, measles, flu vax).  mostly to prevent future devastating waves.  We are now fighting a moving, changing endemic enemy.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

only if they choose to completely ignore the overwhelming majority of the data and believe they are still correct despite what they just witnessed.

There is science, and the hypocritical hammer blow from the government’s interpretation of it that often color the story.   The fault for hesitancy had rejection of the narrative can be laid squarely at the feet of leadership.  
 

The reality is “they” were correct—it was impossible to go more than a couple days during the lockdown days without seeing evidence that those most uniquely positioned to have access to ALL the data were guilty of completely disregarding the rules set in stone for the rest of us. 
 

The most telling of all was the silence on mass protests.  We were supposed to look the other way while virtually every rule established was completely and unquestionably disregarded and nary a peep from those leading the lockdown charge.  
 

Here we are a couple years later, you knowing the details—that those mass protests lead directly to perpetuation of the virus and death and heartache on a massive scale, especially in historically disenfranchised communities.   While often noble in cause, much of the blame for COVID spread rests here.  
 

 

 

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Incorrect

Incorrect. 

 

 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is science, and the hypocritical hammer blow from the government’s interpretation of it that often color the story.   The fault for hesitancy had rejection of the narrative can be laid squarely at the feet of leadership.  
 

The reality is “they” were correct—it was impossible to go more than a couple days during the lockdown days without seeing evidence that those most uniquely positioned to have access to ALL the data were guilty of completely disregarding the rules set in stone for the rest of us. 
 

The most telling of all was the silence on mass protests.  We were supposed to look the other way while virtually every rule established was completely and unquestionably disregarded and nary a peep from those leading the lockdown charge.  
 

Here we are a couple years later, you knowing the details—that those mass protests lead directly to perpetuation of the virus and death and heartache on a massive scale, especially in historically disenfranchised communities.   While often noble in cause, much of the blame for COVID spread rests here.  
 

 

 

Incorrect. 

 

 

 

 

What scientific organizations supported mass protests at the height of the pandemic?  Just because other stupid people tried to subvert the goals of a temporary lockdown does not make it a bad strategy.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Incorrect. 

Nah, I’m right here. You’re just looking for reasons to side against rationality so you’re bringing up stuff to deflect from the basic fact that everyone should get COVID vaccines and boosters. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9435423/

 

It is dependent on geographic prevalence. imo, for most vaxed individuals in most US areas, masking/distancing will have little effect on mortality.  It appears not to be the case in China for example, but we know little about the actual prevalence and death rate there.  I think it's fair to assume they are high given that I don't think China  desires to slow their own economy.  but vaccines, yes, around the globe (in the same way we still need polio, measles, flu vax).  mostly to prevent future devastating waves.  We are now fighting a moving, changing endemic enemy.

So you’re also in favor of everyone getting vaccinated, regardless of age? In other words, children should be vaccinated from a virus that poses no risk to them? Why not simply treat this like the flu shot now and just strongly encourage elderly people to get an annual booster? 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So you’re also in favor of everyone getting vaccinated, regardless of age? In other words, children should be vaccinated from a virus that poses no risk to them? Why not simply treat this like the flu shot now and just strongly encourage elderly people to get an annual booster? 

yes, in all ages where efficacy and safety have been tested.  Interesting question re flu vax.  The system I worked in has, for years, required all employees to get an annual flu shot or lose their jobs and still does..  Many healthcare systems do the same.  Yet many were extremely late or actually fought against mandatory Covid vax.  Polio vax is still required for school enrollment in all 50 states:  https://www.immunize.org/laws/polio.asp

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk