Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 880227">That bolded statement?  That is 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.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

DoURant

Total: 184 (members: 2, guests: 182)

Latest posts

H
Final Thoughts on 2025 Draft
- Latest: Heyjoe4
- 36 minutes ago
Draft Talk
UDFA Signings 2025
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Yesterday at 9:17 PM
Draft Talk
Pick 198 Warren Brinson DT Georgia
- Latest: tynimiller
- Yesterday at 3:34 PM
Draft Talk
Transfer portal and NIL Money, how they have changed college sports".
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Yesterday at 3:02 PM
College Sports
2025 NFL Schedule Release
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Yesterday at 2:57 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum