Why Conspiracy Theories?

[mixed_biscuits]

That page makes sense when using winter data, not summer data (when the tests will pick up a great proportion of lapsed infections)

 

[luka]

thats not an answer is it. i didnt ask whther it made sense or not. i said how would a human being go about assesing that data (without recourse to alternative facts or village explainers)

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I think that's why they've chosen those graphs: to blind with science.

 

[WashYourHands]

Kimura into an arm bar

 

[mixed_biscuits]

But also because getting to the bottom of complicated matters is complicated (especially when done impartially, which isn't the case there).

 

[luka]

so in other words you havent got a clue.

 

[luka]

youre basing your beleifs on something else, how persuasive you find the person presenting the 'evidence' for example, or how closely it fits with your preconceptions.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I understand what the graphs are showing.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Just that their evidence does not refute all of the claims out there, including some very important considerations.

 

[luka]

in other words you arent making decisions based on the graphs

 

[luka]

the graphs are a lot of lines and dots proving nothing with no explanatory power. a load of bollocks.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This is typical of futile attempts to put everything in the same category.

I wonder if Merck recently announcing that natural infection is superior to the vaccine counts as 'conspiracy theory'

Superior in what sense? Some people might say that catching a virus that can kill you or make you seriously ill is a downside of the "catching the virus to become immune to it" approach.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Ask Merck?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Wait, hang on, Merck are the scientists and you're denying the inherent truth of their statement...are you a science denier?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Or perhaps you think Merck are making up for their failed vaccine by skewering the competition...are you a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Mr. Tea]

The interactions in these last couple of pages are pretty wild. @mixed_biscuits is carrying on with his voice-from-the-wilderness schtick, maintaining that Bill Gates probably isn't trying to inject us with microchips, but why take the chance?, and anyway we should all just hurry up and catch it, then we'll be immune and it'll do us a favour by pruning away the weak and inferior; @luka half wants to be on the same side because he loves conspiracy theories and knows it winds me up, but also has no truck with data or evidence of any kind; @sufi knows all science is inherently false and haram and we could get all the answers we need by studying the Qu'ran and Hadith; @WashYourHands just popping up here and there with lovely little gnomic, zen-like koan, nodding sagely to himself as he does so.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Wait, hang on, Merck are the scientists and you're denying the inherent truth of their statement...are you a science denier?

Well I haven't looked at their paper - maybe they have good evidence to say that catching the virus offers better protection against future infections than (one or some of the many) vaccines.

But you didn't say that, you just said "superior". I would say that, quite apart from efficacy, a big advantage of vaccines is that you're not at risk of getting the disease.

 

[luka]

The interactions in these last couple of pages are pretty wild.

why cant you understand even the most simple and straightfoward of logical arguments? youve got the brain of a peasant from the dark ages

 

[Mr. Tea]

I mean, all other things being equal, would you rather be at risk of a disease that could kill you or disable you, or would you rather not?

Your idea of risk seems to be a bit faulty if you think that risk can safely be ignored, but "maybe the vaccine is a giant mind control conspiracy" is a good reason not to have the vaccine.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Science-denier!