Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Will we have a 2020 NFL Season?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 880227"><p>That bolded statement? That <strong><em>is</em></strong> science. Scientists knew little about how this specific virus would behave. It was a best guess based on prior analogs. Data is gathered, lab studies are done, perspectives are refined.</p><p></p><p>Quoting a scientist in August as being "wrong" about Covid-19 based on something he said in January falls somewhere between stoopid and disingenuous, probably both, particularly when he's been repeatedly right ever since.</p><p></p><p>When talking about measles vaccines, for example, epidemiological studies have been done out the ***** over decades. They are safe no matter what the anti-vaxers say, the same people having their autisitic kids drink bleach as a purported cure, or most recently drink bleach as Covid-19 cure.</p><p></p><p>We need to understand what "safe" means in that case. It does not mean infallible. It does not mean it is necessarily safe for you. It means that your odds of staying healthy (and those of the people around you) are better with it than without it, and the more people who take it the better the odds for everybody.</p><p></p><p>I am neither religious, conspiratorial not superstitious. I believe firmly in science practiced responsibly (it sounds stoopid to say otherwise), so I sure wouldn't be taking that new Ruskie vaccine because that's being pushed out under bad science. And frankly, I won't be elbowing my way to the front of the line for the first Covid-19 vaccine developed by reputable scientists at this rate of speed especially being in good general health and living in a place tests have been coming back 98-99% negative. (Thank you, Goverenor Cuomo.) A Phase III double-blind clinical trial with 30,000 subjects is a pretty good test of safety, never infallible, but a new-new drug for a new-new virus may show something different when pushed out in the 100,000's into the general population. And in this case, even reputable scientists may be pressured into mistakes or confirmation bias.</p><p></p><p>As for some moms and politicized governors and school administrators saying there is no concrete proof that masks prevent spread of the virus, that's beside the point. You don't need concrete proof for such a simple measure, "evidence suggesting" is more than sufficient. There's no way you could ever get concrete proof, so it just sounds like a loony excuse. No responsible scentist is going to put infected people and non-infected people together in a lab in controlled experiements with masks then without them to see what happens. Masks reduce viral load going and coming--you don't need anything more than that to know you should wear one.</p><p></p><p>There's no other way to put it--anti-science is stoopid, politically motivated or profit motivated. Or, again, perhaps all three.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 880227"] That bolded statement? That [B][I]is[/I][/B] science. Scientists knew little about how this specific virus would behave. It was a best guess based on prior analogs. Data is gathered, lab studies are done, perspectives are refined. Quoting a scientist in August as being "wrong" about Covid-19 based on something he said in January falls somewhere between stoopid and disingenuous, probably both, particularly when he's been repeatedly right ever since. When talking about measles vaccines, for example, epidemiological studies have been done out the ***** over decades. They are safe no matter what the anti-vaxers say, the same people having their autisitic kids drink bleach as a purported cure, or most recently drink bleach as Covid-19 cure. We need to understand what "safe" means in that case. It does not mean infallible. It does not mean it is necessarily safe for you. It means that your odds of staying healthy (and those of the people around you) are better with it than without it, and the more people who take it the better the odds for everybody. I am neither religious, conspiratorial not superstitious. I believe firmly in science practiced responsibly (it sounds stoopid to say otherwise), so I sure wouldn't be taking that new Ruskie vaccine because that's being pushed out under bad science. And frankly, I won't be elbowing my way to the front of the line for the first Covid-19 vaccine developed by reputable scientists at this rate of speed especially being in good general health and living in a place tests have been coming back 98-99% negative. (Thank you, Goverenor Cuomo.) A Phase III double-blind clinical trial with 30,000 subjects is a pretty good test of safety, never infallible, but a new-new drug for a new-new virus may show something different when pushed out in the 100,000's into the general population. And in this case, even reputable scientists may be pressured into mistakes or confirmation bias. As for some moms and politicized governors and school administrators saying there is no concrete proof that masks prevent spread of the virus, that's beside the point. You don't need concrete proof for such a simple measure, "evidence suggesting" is more than sufficient. There's no way you could ever get concrete proof, so it just sounds like a loony excuse. No responsible scentist is going to put infected people and non-infected people together in a lab in controlled experiements with masks then without them to see what happens. Masks reduce viral load going and coming--you don't need anything more than that to know you should wear one. There's no other way to put it--anti-science is stoopid, politically motivated or profit motivated. Or, again, perhaps all three. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
gopkrs
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:12 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 10:57 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 3:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 2:00 PM
Movies and Entertainment
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Magooch
Yesterday at 11:43 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Will we have a 2020 NFL Season?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
