# Why some people still don't want to wear mask?



## Kung Fu Wang

*What's wrong in US?*

Sanjay Gupta: "There will be people who became infected" after attending Trump's RNC speech


----------



## Flying Crane

I cannot answer that question without violating the politics rule.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot answer that question without violating the politics rule.


Wearing mask has nothing to do with politics. It's 100% health issue.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Wearing mask has nothing to do with politics. It's 100% health issue.



I agree with you.   But you asked why people still won’t wear masks.  The answer to that question is political.  The source of the problem is a political one.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Foster Farms Poultry Plant Ordered Closed After COVID Outbreak Kills 8 and Infects 358 Workers*

Foster Farms Poultry Plant Ordered Closed After COVID Outbreak Kills 8 and Infects 358 Workers


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I agree with you.   But you asked why people still won’t wear masks.  The answer to that question is political.  The source of the problem is a political one.


Please explain why it's a politics issue.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.


It depends on where you are.  But yes, there are people here who refuse to wear masks.  I know where it comes from, but it absolutely makes no sense to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Please explain why it's a politics issue.


I can’t, without violating the no politics rule.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

My friend in Taiwan told me that it's not a politics issue in Taiwan. Why it can be a politics issue in US?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Starting from the 1st grade, all Chinese kid have to sweep the class room at the end of the school day. All Chinese kid wear mask since 1st grade through the end of senior high. All Chinese kids have mask in their pockets for 12 full years.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.


Enlighten me, John. Why would I want to wear a mask outdoors, in the _open air _when no other people are close by? When I go out to walk the dog, I don't wear a mask, and I never come within 20 yards of anyone else. Heck 50 yards is rare. 

When I go to the store, I park, grab my mask that's hanging off my turn signal lever, and put it on as I walk across the parking lot and approach the entrance to the store. And even then, I keep my distance from others. Should I be wearing a mask _every moment _I'm out of my house? ...like my paranoid neighbor I see wearing a mask when driving around in his car with the windows up? Is there any logical reason to behave that way?

No politics  ...just give me some factual data as to the advantage of behaving like that!


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My friend in Taiwan told me that it's not a politics issue in Taiwan. Why it can be a politics issue in US?



That is a discussion for a political forum. Enough to be aware that it has become a political issue and let that subject go.


----------



## Flying Crane

Watch the news.  The answer will be apparent quickly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> That is a discussion for a political forum. Enough to be aware that it has become a political issue and let that subject go.


Should we first understand why it's a politics issue, we can then stop to discuss it?

People have no issue to wear mask in party.


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Should we first understand why it's a politics issue, we can then stop to discuss it?
> 
> People have no issue to wear mask in party.


People have turned it into a freedom issue, believing their rights are being infringed upon by being required to wear a mask. I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with it; just stating what I’ve seen. That’s the politics in as simple of a way I can put it to not get political.

Please don’t get the thread locked.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.



I'm afraid to travel because I don't want to be crammed into a sealed airplane breathing the same air as a hundred or more strangers for hours. Once you get to your destination, you have many options, but getting there... that's another story!

So I take day trips in my car.


----------



## JR 137

Aside from my previous post...

They’re uncomfortable, difficult to breathe in, and I get hotter wearing one. I don’t want to wear a mask, but I do. Like it or not, I wear it to protect myself, my family, and others I come in contact with. It’s annoying and frustrating, but it is what it is. Hopefully it’ll end sooner than later.


----------



## skribs

Whether or not it's a politics issue...why is it a General Martial Arts issue?

Saying "it's a people issue, not a politics issue" is just a cop-out so you don't have to listen to any other opinions.  You've rejected all other opinions except for your own.  If any other opinions come in, you just look down on the person instead of listening to them.  You've decided what's fact or not, and you've decided that your understanding is more correct than anyone else's.  While that is a perfectly valid position to take for yourself, it's entirely an overstep to assume that everyone else should agree with you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> freedom issue, ...


Are

- seat belt requirement,
- don't drink while driving,
- no smoking in restaurant,
- ...

also freedom issue?


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are
> 
> - seat belt requirement,
> - don't drink while driving,
> - no smoking in restaurant,
> - ...
> 
> also freedom issue?


Not all states have a seatbelt law. And motorcycle helmet law. They consider it a freedom issue. New Hampshire doesn’t have them. State motto is Live Free or Die. It’s on their license plates, made by people in prison


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

AceVentura said:


> There is no common sense with the airlines.  I flew in July and was on the plane for over three hours, all of us cramped in together, full flight, middle seats full, and then as we walked off the plane we were told "practice social distancing, your safety is our top priority."  Biggest stench of bulls--- I ever got a sniff of.


Why take the risk if you don't need to? Is it better to avoid problem?


----------



## Danny T

I don't like wearing a mask but I do understand other's feelings. I follow the CDC recommendations.
Per the CDC website; "CDC recommends that you wear masks in public settings around people who don’t live in your household and *when you* *can’t stay 6 feet away *from others." 

6 feet away from others...there are many places where people gather and can keep 6 feet or more away from each other.


----------



## geezer

skribs said:


> Whether or not it's a politics issue...why is it a General Martial Arts issue?
> 
> Saying "it's a people issue, not a politics issue" is just a cop-out so you don't have to listen to any other opinions.  You've rejected all other opinions except for your own.  If any other opinions come in, you just look down on the person instead of listening to them.  You've decided what's fact or not, and you've decided that your understanding is more correct than anyone else's.  While that is a perfectly valid position to take for yourself, it's entirely an overstep to assume that everyone else should agree with you.



It's angry comments like this that get threads locked. I understand that some of you are carrying some ...animus? from previous threads. Maybe it's time to walk it back a bit guys and just know that others will disagree. Hey all, let's show a little self control.


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> Enlighten me, John. Why would I want to wear a mask outdoors, in the _open air _when no other people are close by? When I go out to walk the dog, I don't wear a mask, and I never come within 20 yards of anyone else. Heck 50 yards is rare.
> 
> When I go to the store, I park, grab my mask that's hanging off my turn signal lever, and put it on as I walk across the parking lot and approach the entrance to the store. And even then, I keep my distance from others. Should I be wearing a mask _every moment _I'm out of my house? ...like my paranoid neighbor I see wearing a mask when driving around in his car with the windows up? Is there any logical reason to behave that way?
> 
> No politics  ...just give me some factual data as to the advantage of behaving like that!


I wear a mask if I'm anywhere closer than about 12 to 15 feet of folks outside.  Otherwise, I don't.  

If I'm going into a store I'll out my mask on in the car.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I just feel sorry for those death. Some of them don't have to die if people wear masks.

Taiwan death = 7.

US death = 184K.

The Foster Farms Poultry Planet has more death than the whole Taiwan has. It makes no sense.

*Foster Farms Poultry Plant Ordered Closed After COVID Outbreak Kills 8 and Infects 358 Workers*


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> I wear a mask if I'm anywhere closer than about 12 to 15 feet of folks outside.  Otherwise, I don't.
> If I'm going into a store I'll out my mask on in the car.



You are more careful than I am. And your behavior protects others, so ...Good on you mate!


----------



## Steve

We have some stupid lovely people in America.  Like this guy who believed our president and ended up needlessly losing his wife.  

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241855016.html


----------



## EdwardA

Gee, I'm surprised no one gets the political aspect, but I will without arguing either side.  Some people believe in as much liberty as possible and as little government as possible, making it individual choice.  They tend to be conservative.  That makes it a political issue.  I'm not making an argument in either direction.

I didn't wear one at all until it was state law, then I did.  I however, live in a rural area, live alone and don't socialize.  I might have considered wearing one sooner in a city environment, by my own choice.  I did get the sars-covid 2017 version, it was painful in the upper lungs, but I knocked it down in 2.5 days taking 6000 milligrams vitamin C per day for that time.  I have a strong immune system.


----------



## EdwardA

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are
> 
> - seat belt requirement,
> - don't drink while driving,
> - no smoking in restaurant,
> - ...
> 
> also freedom issue?



Partially, but I'd rather see people made to ride motorcycles for the first five years...solve lots of problems.  Lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.


Outdoors, if you're not near someone (and not part of a gathering), the mask isn't necessary. Natural air currents disperse droplets pretty efficiently. Of course, that all changes if you're somewhere you'll be interacting with people regularly.

This is why I only teach outdoors, with distancing, for now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Please explain why it's a politics issue.


I'm sitting here trying to think of a way to answer without getting into the politics behind it. I can't. Some have decided it is a political issue, so it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My friend in Taiwan told me that it's not a politics issue in Taiwan. Why it can be a politics issue in US?


Because some decided to make it such. Different people will disagree as to which group that is, and that's all I can say without getting political.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Should we first understand why it's a politics issue, we can then stop to discuss it?
> 
> People have no issue to wear mask in party.


As citizens, we probably should. But not in this forum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> I'm afraid to travel because I don't want to be crammed into a sealed airplane breathing the same air as a hundred or more strangers for hours. Once you get to your destination, you have many options, but getting there... that's another story!
> 
> So I take day trips in my car.


Agreed. I've turned down work that would require flying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I wear a mask if I'm anywhere closer than about 12 to 15 feet of folks outside.  Otherwise, I don't.
> 
> If I'm going into a store I'll out my mask on in the car.


This is what I aim for. I'll admit I'm not perfect - I catch myself being a little slow with the mask sometimes. Apparently, old habits and all that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EdwardA said:


> Gee, I'm surprised no one gets the political aspect, but I will without arguing either side.  Some people believe in as much liberty as possible and as little government as possible, making it individual choice.  They tend to be conservative.  That makes it a political issue.  I'm not making an argument in either direction.
> 
> I didn't wear one at all until it was state law, then I did.  I however, live in a rural area, live alone and don't socialize.  I might have considered wearing one sooner in a city environment, by my own choice.  I did get the sars-covid 2017 version, it was painful in the upper lungs, but I knocked it down in 2.5 days taking 6000 milligrams vitamin C per day for that time.  I have a strong immune system.


I'm glad you recovered from that so quickly. Just dropping this here for others - there's no evidence I could find that high doses of vitamin C have any effect on viral infection.


----------



## granfire

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I'm afraid to go to California this year. My California friend told me that 50% of the California people don't wear mask outdoor.


Outdoors?
that isn't so bad. you got air flow and stay back from people. 
Unless of course you have a bunch of idiots who crowd the beaches.

Again, the political reason it is political violates the no-politics reason (which sadly restricts a lot of important topics, because, let's face it, special life is political).

But I give you a little hint: 
It starts with the head of state.


----------



## Steve

Fun fact, the air on a plane is pretty fresh, turned over 100% about every 3 to 5 minutes.   It’s about as close to constantly fresh air as you can get inside, and certainly fresher than in your home when the ac is on.  

The dangers on planes are dirty surfaces and idiots who think not wearing a mask is a liberty.  It’s political in the USA because all of these idiots support the same party.


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Fun fact, the air on a plane is pretty fresh, turned over 100% about every 3 to 5 minutes.   It’s about as close to constantly fresh air as you can get inside, and certainly fresher than in your home when the ac is on.
> 
> The dangers on planes are dirty surfaces and idiots who think not wearing a mask is a liberty.  It’s political in the USA because all of these idiots support the same party.


Trust me, not all of the idiots support the same party. I live in a heavily other party state and area, and there’s plenty of idiots not wearing them and arguing about it who aren’t red. They may be louder or covered more by the media, but they’re not the only idiots. Not by a long shot. 

Idiocy knows no race, gender, religious, political, etc. bounds. That’s one of the very few things I’m certain of in life.


----------



## EdwardA

gpseymour said:


> I'm glad you recovered from that so quickly. Just dropping this here for others - there's no evidence I could find that high doses of vitamin C have any effect on viral infection.



Of course not.  The only thing excess vitamin C does, is flush out your body.  It help to get rid of waste and anything else the body is trying to expel.  That only shortened the time I had it.  The rest was up to my immune system.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> Trust me, not all of the idiots support the same party. I live in a heavily other party state and area, and there’s plenty of idiots not wearing them and arguing about it who aren’t red. They may be louder or covered more by the media, but they’re not the only idiots. Not by a long shot.
> 
> Idiocy knows no race, gender, religious, political, etc. bounds. That’s one of the very few things I’m certain of in life.


i will take your word for it. We have a dominant idiot species around here.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> i will take your word for it. We have a dominant idiot species around here.



Of course.  There are all kinds of people in every aspect of life, regardless of affection...or anything else.  I will add tho, that some people value individual liberty so highly, they are willing to risk, or even die over it.  As individuals go, sometimes it's misplaced, sometimes not.  I'm not going to judge them for my opinion.  There's all kinds of people in all walks of life.

I protect myself by getting to the store at dawn when it's freshly ceaned and few people these.  I'm the first one in and there's either no line or only 2-4 people in line....after me.  Sunday morning.


----------



## EdwardA

I'd like to point out, considering the site we're posting on, that the upright version of Tai Chi was never solely martial.  From my experience and many others...not to mention the meridian maps, it's also intended to put your body into a posture, balance and overall structure that helps your body work better, at a higher potential.  It effects lots of things.  Especially your health.  I put it into every aspect of my life, as much as possible.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> Of course not.  The only thing excess vitamin C does, is flush out your body.  It help to get rid of waste and anything else the body is trying to expel.  That only shortened the time I had it.  The rest was up to my immune system.


Agree! When you start to feel sick, get a lemon, put it in water with skin, and drink the water. You will be surprise that you may prevent a cold right there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I wear a mask if I'm anywhere closer than about 12 to 15 feet of folks outside.  Otherwise, I don't.
> 
> If I'm going into a store I'll out my mask on in the car.


Same here.

For me the entire mask thing is very simple. There's a virus out there that is easy to catch.  What are the way to reduce my risk of catching it or spreading it? Then do that.  I don't make it a political thing, because when I want information about my health, I listen to doctors and scientist.   

When I get sick or want to avoid getting sick, I go to a trusted doctor.  I don't go to a politician. So for me masks are pretty straight forward which is why I don't complain about having to wear one.  It doesn't take away any of my freedoms.  I still go to the same places that I used to go to. My reasoning for not going to crowded places isn't because my rights were taken away. It's because health officials say that the more people that I'm around the more like it will be that I catch it.

I don't like being sick.  It's not something I strive to obtain.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Same here.
> 
> For me the entire mask thing is very simple. There's a virus out there that is easy to catch.  What are the way to reduce my risk of catching it or spreading it? Then do that.  I don't make it a political thing, because when I want information about my health, I listen to doctors and scientist.
> 
> When I get sick or want to avoid getting sick, I go to a trusted doctor.  I don't go to a politician. So for me masks are pretty straight forward which is why I don't complain about having to wear one.  It doesn't take away any of my freedoms.  I still go to the same places that I used to go to. My reasoning for not going to crowded places isn't because my rights were taken away. It's because health officials say that the more people that I'm around the more like it will be that I catch it.
> 
> I don't like being sick.  It's not something I strive to obtain.


You know, I'm not interested in getting sick.  But if I'm being honest, the reason I try to be very diligent about wearing a mask is because there's just no reason to be a dick about it.  I mean, people are concerned, and we know that some folks are at higher risk of serious illness or death than others.  Why make those folks worry?  Why not wear a mask to help put them at ease?  I think my chances of getting seriously ill are pretty low.  But if I don't wear a mask, it stresses other folks out.  I don't know why I'd want to do that.  

I live in a rural/suburban area of King County, south of Seattle.  It's a pretty evenly split area, politics-wise.  Most folks are wearing masks and it's not a big deal.  A few folks don't wear a mask, and they do it for the same reasons they open carry guns.  They are douchebags.   And douchebags are unpredictable.  And anything that is unpredictable causes issues.


----------



## Buka

I take anyone near me that's not wearing a mask as a threat to my life, as I am of the highest risk.

I also take anyone around me not wearing a mask as a complete A-hole. 
If I were still working I wouldn't take that personally. I never have, ever.

But now that I ain't working, it's a personal hobby of mine to show an A-hole what a REAL A-hole, especially an old aggressive one, can be like.

I chased an unmasked A-hole out of my local bank on Friday. To the cheers of everyone working there.
They all told me afterwards he was the first person to come into the bank unmasked since the edict was put in place. Heck, there's a big sign on the door, face high, in huge letters.

He was breaking County and State law. But I broke a more serious law by threatening him. Terroristic Threatening it's called here. Taken quite serious, and prosecuted all the time. But, as they say out here, Me No Care.

My bad.


----------



## Buka

AceVentura said:


> Seriously? Did you celebrate the man being killed in Portland also?
> 
> Sounds like you might be part of the problem.



Think what you like, I take my life very seriously.


----------



## Buka

@Let me ask you, Ace, do you wear a mask every time you're out and near people?


----------



## EdwardA

Right now more people in the US are arming themselves in numbers never seen before as a direct result of violence and being teratened.  Anybody thinking about forcing other people to behave the way they think they should... remember that when it gets out of hand.  Personally, I don't care what other people do until they get within 6ft. of me.  And I'm not overly worred about it, just a little concerned.  I can think of much worse things then covid.  Gee, there are 100s maybe even 1000s of small children dying all over the planet from starvation every day.  There are also 100000s of young women being trafficed everyday.   Get over yourselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EdwardA said:


> Right now more people in the US are arming themselves in numbers never seen before as a direct result of violence and being teratened.  Anybody thinking about forcing other people to behave the way they think they should... remember that when it gets out of hand.  Personally, I don't care what other people do until they get within 6ft. of me.  And I'm not overly worred about it, just a little concerned.  I can think of much worse things then covid.  Gee, there are 100s maybe even 1000s of small children dying all over the planet from starvation every day.  There are also 100000s of young women being trafficed everyday.   Get over yourselves.


Covid can kill. Pretty sure nobody wants that. It's more likely to kill other people than me, because I'm healthy. I'm not interested in becoming a vector to give it to those folks.

Get over yourself.


----------



## EdwardA

gpseymour said:


> Covid can kill. Pretty sure nobody wants that. It's more likely to kill other people than me, because I'm healthy. I'm not interested in becoming a vector to give it to those folks.
> 
> Get over yourself.



Have you ever looked down the barrel of a weapon?  I have, a number of times.  Next time that happens, let us know how it goes....or just go to Chicago on any given night....worse than covid. 

Inside prisons,worse than covid, inside any project or ghetto at night, worse than covid. Sex trafficking, worse than covid. Gang wars in the drug trade, worse than covid....Even being homeless is worse than covid.  That's how I saw all of those things close up.I could make a much longer list of things that if you ever saw close up, you wouldn't think covid was something to be so afraid of.


----------



## Buka

AceVentura said:


> Seriously? Did you celebrate the man being killed in Portland also?
> 
> Sounds like you might be part of the problem.



What makes you think I would celebrate anyone's death? I wouldn't. Would you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> I'd like to point out, considering the site we're posting on, that the upright version of Tai Chi was never solely martial. ...


You may change your opinion if you have met the right Taiji teacher.

Since we are talking about MA in non-MA section thread, should we move this thread back to MA section?


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may change your opinion if you have met the right Taiji teacher.



A long time ago I asked Billy Blanks who the baddest Martial teacher he ever knew was. Without a seconds hesitation he said "Master Chan, my Tai Chi instructor."


----------



## EdwardA

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may change your opinion if you have met the right ?
> 
> Since we are talking about MA in non-MA section thread, should we move this thread back to MA section?



I was only referring to the 108 move set.  There are millions of people all over the world that do that set only for the health benefit, tho this might be a shorter form.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> I was only referring to the 108 move set.  There are millions of people all over the world that do that set only for the health benefits.


That's a good thing right? If Taiji fighters are all over the planet, those MMA guys will be in big trouble.

A: Dear master! that 5 years old kid beats me up again yesterday.
B: Don't mess with that kid. He is a Taiji fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EdwardA said:


> Have you ever looked down the barrel of a weapon?  I have, a number of times.  Next time that happens, let us know how it goes....or just go to Chicago on any given night....worse than covid.
> 
> Inside prisons,worse than covid, inside any project or ghetto at night, worse than covid. Sex trafficking, worse than covid. Gang wars in the drug trade, worse than covid....Even being homeless is worse than covid.  That's how I saw all of those things close up.I could make a much longer list of things that if you ever saw close up, you wouldn't think covid was something to be so afraid of.


That’s just so much “whataboutism”. None of that makes Covid less of an issue. You try to make caution sound like fear. I just follow the science and statistics and give a damn about people. It’s an easy thing to do, and costs me little.


----------



## JowGaWolf

If the CDC could sh


Steve said:


> You know, I'm not interested in getting sick.  But if I'm being honest, the reason I try to be very diligent about wearing a mask is because there's just no reason to be a dick about it.  I mean, people are concerned, and we know that some folks are at higher risk of serious illness or death than others.  Why make those folks worry?  Why not wear a mask to help put them at ease?  I think my chances of getting seriously ill are pretty low.  But if I don't wear a mask, it stresses other folks out.  I don't know why I'd want to do that.
> 
> I live in a rural/suburban area of King County, south of Seattle.  It's a pretty evenly split area, politics-wise.  Most folks are wearing masks and it's not a big deal.  A few folks don't wear a mask, and they do it for the same reasons they open carry guns.  They are douchebags.   And douchebags are unpredictable.  And anything that is unpredictable causes issues.


I think this happened 2 weeks ago.  I was at the grocery and there was a husband with his wife and I assume his daughter.  The ladies had their mask on, but the husband was walking around the grocery whistling.  I avoided as it was the least resistance to dealing with him.  But it's things like that that really irritate me.  But that's how the world is and not everyone cares about their fellow citizen.  Again people like that would have normally been lunch or dinner for a lion or tiger.

Unfortunately the world is like that.


----------



## EdwardA

gpseymour said:


> I just follow the science and statistics and give a damn about people. It’s an easy thing to do, and costs me little.



The science has just bearly begun, and there been many errors in the statics already found.  Just North Carolina by itself had to retract 200,000 positive cases out of it's State numbers.  My only point is that people are being overly reactive.  Sure, I take measures to protect myself, being very healthy at almost 65, but I'm not very concerned about what other people do.  No body's tried to get in my face or anything....and I've seen much worse that worried me more.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> The science has just bearly begun, and there been many errors in the statics already found.  Just North Carolina by itself had to retract 200,000 positive cases out of it's State numbers.  My only point is that people are being overly reactive.  Sure, I thank measures to protect myself, being very healthy at almost 65, but I'm not very concerned about what other people do.  No body's tried to get in my face or anything....and I've seen much worse that worried me more.


Surely, where health and safety are involved, better to be cautious than cavalier.  Following the science means just that.  If things turn out to be a nothingburger.  Great.  But the issue in the USA from the beginning is that we've been trying to catch up.

We're also seeing now that the virus is mutating.  I recall reading that at least one person has been confirmed to have contracted the virus twice.  Herd immunity may not be possible, much as there is no herd immunity to the Flu. 

Lastly, there are a lot of folks out there who are taking drugs that may be doing more harm than good (e.g., hydrochloriquine), taking snake oil products that are almost certainly doing more harm than good (e.g., colloidal silver), and just plain doing very dumb things (e.g., gargling or even drinking bleach).  The issues with the science aren't issues with science.  It's entirely to do with learning more about this particular virus.  The epidemiologists know what they're doing.  They have dealt with other pandemics, such as SARS.  And we can see in those countries where they did follow the science, the work has paid off.  In other words, what we're going through now is entirely predictable.

Edit to add:  I recently read an article stating that the virus has already mutated into one that appears to be less deadly but more contagious.  I'll post a link, if I can find it again.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Surely, where health and safety are involved, better to be cautious than cavalier.  Following the science means just that.  If things turn out to be a nothingburger.  Great.  But the issue in the USA from the beginning is that we've been trying to catch up.
> 
> We're also seeing now that the virus is mutating.  I recall reading that at least one person has been confirmed to have contracted the virus twice.  Herd immunity may not be possible, much as there is no herd immunity to the Flu.
> 
> Lastly, there are a lot of folks out there who are taking drugs that may be doing more harm than good (e.g., hydrochloriquine), taking snake oil products that are almost certainly doing more harm than good (e.g., colloidal silver), and just plain doing very dumb things (e.g., gargling or even drinking bleach).  The issues with the science aren't issues with science.  It's entirely to do with learning more about this particular virus.  The epidemiologists know what they're doing.  They have dealt with other pandemics, such as SARS.  And we can see in those countries where they did follow the science, the work has paid off.  In other words, what we're going through now is entirely predictable.



New studies from both John Hopkins and Harvard Medical are showing hydrochloriquine relieves simptoms and works very well when used early.  The press won't talk report on it, and others deny it, but both Harvard an John Hopkins are pretty good sources, don't you think?

Look it up using the two schools I mentioned.


----------



## Steve

Here's an article on reinfection:
The Mutations that Caused Covid-19 Reinfection Explained

And another on the mutations:

Are mutations making coronavirus more infectious?


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> New studies from both John Hopkins and Harvard Medical are showing hydrochloriquine relieves simptoms and works very well when used early.  The press won't talk report on it, and others deny it, but both Harvard an John Hopkins are pretty good sources, don't you think?
> 
> Look it up using the two schools I mentioned.


Oh, FFS:

FDA cautions use of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for COVID-19

Covid-19 Story Tip: Hydroxychloroquine Not Recommended for Treatment of COVID-19

Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: A Lesson in Study Quality

Note, one of the links above is from Hopkinsmedicine.


----------



## Steve

Just to be clear, something will work at some point, I sincerely hope.  We want that to happen.  Everyone wants that to happen.  So, this isn't a situation where folks have some beef against Hydroxychloroquine and are hoping that it fails.  It's precisely to do with following the science and letting the experts figure this out using actual data.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Just to be clear, something will work at some point, I sincerely hope.  We want that to happen.  Everyone wants that to happen.  So, this isn't a situation where folks have some beef against Hydroxychloroquine and are hoping that it fails.  It's precisely to do with following the science and letting the experts figure this out using actual data.



I agree the science could take years, and new studies are always cautionary.  They have to go thru lots of testing, and peer review, but there is some political science being confused with real science...and it takes some effort to dig out the difference.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> I agree the science could take years, and new studies are always cautionary.  They have to go thru lots of testing, and peer review, but there is some political science being confused with real science...and it takes some effort to dig out the difference.


Who said years?  I don't think it will take nearly that long, though recent trends are concerning.  Getting a covid shot each year may be as routine as getting a flu shot, though I hope not.  

Regarding an inability to distinguish between political science and medical science (I think political scientists would argue that it is also a "real" science), I do agree with that.  This is a medical issue being politicized.  Seemingly only in America.  Huh.  We've managed to work through global pandemics before.  SARS, the Bird Flu, H1N1.  During previous pandemics we've had republican and democratic administrations...  different parties have controlled congress.  What's different now?  Did the scientists change?  No.  A lot of the same guys are around in apolitical positions as subject matter experts (e.g., Dr. Fauci).  We can see that science is working in other parts of the world, and even in parts of the USA where local leadership has filled the national void.  Let's see... hmmm... what could it be?


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Surely, where health and safety are involved, better to be cautious than cavalier.  Following the science means just that.  If things turn out to be a nothingburger.  Great.  But the issue in the USA from the beginning is that we've been trying to catch up.
> 
> We're also seeing now that the virus is mutating.  I recall reading that at least one person has been confirmed to have contracted the virus twice.  Herd immunity may not be possible, much as there is no herd immunity to the Flu.
> 
> Lastly, there are a lot of folks out there who are taking drugs that may be doing more harm than good (e.g., hydrochloriquine), taking snake oil products that are almost certainly doing more harm than good (e.g., colloidal silver), and just plain doing very dumb things (e.g., gargling or even drinking bleach).  The issues with the science aren't issues with science.  It's entirely to do with learning more about this particular virus.  The epidemiologists know what they're doing.  They have dealt with other pandemics, such as SARS.  And we can see in those countries where they did follow the science, the work has paid off.  In other words, what we're going through now is entirely predictable.
> 
> Edit to add:  I recently read an article stating that the virus has already mutated into one that appears to be less deadly but more contagious.  I'll post a link, if I can find it again.


What makes things complicated is that people with antibodies are testing positive months later. Example...

My brother in law is a barber. He needed to take a Covid test to open his shop. On a Sunday he was told he tested positive for antibodies, and negative for the active virus. Then he gets a call on Thursday saying he’s actually positive for both.

He hasn’t been sick for over a year.

He calls the state health department to try to make some sense of it all. He was told by a higher up that they’re seeing about 50% of the people with antibodies testing positive for the active virus even though they’ve got no symptoms. Many were known symptomatic cases that were treated a while back and are over it. Some are asymptomatic people who’ve either had it or have it; there’s no reliable way to distinguish the difference.

This was a few weeks ago. SOB got me quarantined from work until I tested negative. The test sucked. They stuck that pipe cleaner so far up my nose it actually went down and just about touched my tongue. And I asked the woman administering it if it was dipped in gasoline. At least I got a few days off and didn’t lose pay or time off.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Gee, I'm surprised no one gets the political aspect, but I will without arguing either side.  Some people believe in as much liberty as possible and as little government as possible, making it individual choice.  They tend to be conservative.  That makes it a political issue.  I'm not making an argument in either direction.
> 
> I didn't wear one at all until it was state law, then I did.  I however, live in a rural area, live alone and don't socialize.  I might have considered wearing one sooner in a city environment, by my own choice.  I did get the sars-covid 2017 version, it was painful in the upper lungs, but I knocked it down in 2.5 days taking 6000 milligrams vitamin C per day for that time.  I have a strong immune system.


I missed this.  What exactly did you get in 2017?  How was it diagnosed?


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Who said years?  I don't think it will take nearly that long, though recent trends are concerning.  Getting a covid shot each year may be as routine as getting a flu shot, though I hope not.
> 
> Regarding an inability to distinguish between political science and medical science (I think political scientists would argue that it is also a "real" science), I do agree with that.  This is a medical issue being politicized.  Seemingly only in America.  Huh.  We've managed to work through global pandemics before.  SARS, the Bird Flu, H1N1.  During previous pandemics we've had republican and democratic administrations...  different parties have controlled congress.  What's different now?  Did the scientists change?  No.  A lot of the same guys are around in apolitical positions as subject matter experts (e.g., Dr. Fauci).  We can see that science is working in other parts of the world, and even in parts of the USA where local leadership has filled the national void.  Let's see... hmmm... what could it be?


I think it’ll be quite some time after it’s all said and done before the statistics really tell the full story of infection rate, numbers, death toll, et al. Possibly a few years. Things change way too much in real time to get truly accurate statistics. What the numbers and research tell us today will be dispelled next week when someone else sees a compelling trend. Not politically convenient trend, but actual scientific trend.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> What makes things complicated is that people with antibodies are testing positive months later. Example...
> 
> My brother in law is a barber. He needed to take a Covid test to open his shop. On a Sunday he was told he tested positive for antibodies, and negative for the active virus. Then he gets a call on Thursday saying he’s actually positive for both.
> 
> He hasn’t been sick for over a year.
> 
> He calls the state health department to try to make some sense of it all. He was told by a higher up that they’re seeing about 50% of the people with antibodies testing positive for the active virus even though they’ve got no symptoms. Many were known symptomatic cases that were treated a while back and are over it. Some are asymptomatic people who’ve either had it or have it; there’s no reliable way to distinguish the difference.
> 
> This was a few weeks ago. SOB got me quarantined from work until I tested negative. The test sucked. They stuck that pipe cleaner so far up my nose it actually went down and just about touched my tongue. And I asked the woman administering it if it was dipped in gasoline. At least I got a few days off and didn’t lose pay or time off.


I've been tested, and I agree it sucks, though I was told I have good sinuses for it. LOL.  The nurse was in and out pretty quick, and so apart from some involuntary tearing up, I was okay.


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> I've been tested, and I agree it sucks, though I was told I have good sinuses for it. LOL.  The nurse was in and out pretty quick, and so apart from some involuntary tearing up, I was okay.


I did a drive through test. She went so far up and down my nose, and it burned. Then I saw her get another pipe cleaner. I said “you’ve got to do the other too, don’t you?” You could see the grin under the mask while she nodded yes. I said “hurry up before I take off.” The second one was worse. Good thing I didn’t sneeze when that thing was in my nose. It would’ve punctured my brain.


----------



## EdwardA

JR 137 said:


> I did a drive through test. She went so far up and down my nose, and it burned. Then I saw her get another pipe cleaner. I said “you’ve got to do the other too, don’t you?” You could see the grin under the mask while she nodded yes. I said “hurry up before I take off.” The second one was worse. Good thing I didn’t sneeze when that thing was in my nose. It would’ve punctured my brain.



I have terrible sinuses...closed up most of the time. At 65 I'm in much better health than most, even younger.  I live alone, have no kids, that makes some of these things easier.  If I get sick, I'll stay home and deal with it, either way.  I have very good geans (very little illness in my family line), and a very good immune system.


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Just to be clear, something will work at some point, I sincerely hope.  We want that to happen.  Everyone wants that to happen.  So, this isn't a situation where folks have some beef against Hydroxychloroquine and are hoping that it fails.  It's precisely to do with following the science and letting the experts figure this out using actual data.


There are some people out there who hope everything a certain somebody does fails. Somehow they don’t realize that when unsaid guy fails, everyone fails right along with him.

I wasn’t a fan of 43 in any way. I would’ve done almost everything the opposite way. But I never wanted him nor anyone else to fail. I wanted him to prove me wrong. There’s a huge difference.

Not saying you nor anyone else here falls in the hope for failure camp. But they’re definitely out there, and they’re quite loud about it.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> There are some people out there who hope everything a certain somebody does fails. Somehow they don’t realize that when unsaid guy fails, everyone fails right along with him.
> 
> I wasn’t a fan of 43 in any way. I would’ve done almost everything the opposite way. But I never wanted him nor anyone else to fail. I wanted him to prove me wrong. There’s a huge difference.
> 
> Not saying you nor anyone else here falls in the hope for failure camp. But they’re definitely out there, and they’re quite loud about it.


It's always a mixed bag.  Sometimes, really good things come out of bad administrations.  But at the very least, during things like natural disasters and pandemics, no one wants anyone to fail. 

For me, as with most people, there are certain things that are unimportant, some that are important, and some that are non-negotiable.  The good he's done is drowned out by the evil.  For example, I don't like white supremacists.  I do care deeply about our military members and veterans.  I care about people who are homeless and disabled.  I don't care much about gazillionaire tax cuts.  I care about equality and equal representation under the law.  In every one of these areas, we're failing as a country right now.  Miserably.  

I think Trump is the first GOP president in modern history with an unfavorable rating among active duty military personnel, and according to the military times poll from a few weeks ago, he's down 6 points to Biden... which is almost unheard of.  And in stark contrast to 2016, where clinton was down almost 20 points to Trump.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EdwardA said:


> The science has just bearly begun, and there been many errors in the statics already found.  Just North Carolina by itself had to retract 200,000 positive cases out of it's State numbers.  My only point is that people are being overly reactive.  Sure, I take measures to protect myself, being very healthy at almost 65, but I'm not very concerned about what other people do.  No body's tried to get in my face or anything....and I've seen much worse that worried me more.


The science is early. But there are areas where it is simple and consistent. Masks are one of those.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Surely, where health and safety are involved, better to be cautious than cavalier.  Following the science means just that.  If things turn out to be a nothingburger.  Great.  But the issue in the USA from the beginning is that we've been trying to catch up.
> 
> We're also seeing now that the virus is mutating.  I recall reading that at least one person has been confirmed to have contracted the virus twice.  Herd immunity may not be possible, much as there is no herd immunity to the Flu.
> 
> Lastly, there are a lot of folks out there who are taking drugs that may be doing more harm than good (e.g., hydrochloriquine), taking snake oil products that are almost certainly doing more harm than good (e.g., colloidal silver), and just plain doing very dumb things (e.g., gargling or even drinking bleach).  The issues with the science aren't issues with science.  It's entirely to do with learning more about this particular virus.  The epidemiologists know what they're doing.  They have dealt with other pandemics, such as SARS.  And we can see in those countries where they did follow the science, the work has paid off.  In other words, what we're going through now is entirely predictable.
> 
> Edit to add:  I recently read an article stating that the virus has already mutated into one that appears to be less deadly but more contagious.  I'll post a link, if I can find it again.


Most recent information I've found suggests (but far from certain) that there's a shorter duration than hoped for whatever immunization the infection provides, but that there's almost certainly still some immunity. That may bring some hope with the more infectious, less dangerous strain, as it may spread immunity with fewer severe cases of COVID. All conjecture at this point, of course. One of the worrying pieces of evidence is that there's one case where someone is known to have developed COVID twice (tested both times), and the second time was more severe than the first.

As you pointed out, there are some clear areas where the science indicates what works and what doesn't (and may even be harmful).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EdwardA said:


> New studies from both John Hopkins and Harvard Medical are showing hydrochloriquine relieves simptoms and works very well when used early.  The press won't talk report on it, and others deny it, but both Harvard an John Hopkins are pretty good sources, don't you think?
> 
> Look it up using the two schools I mentioned.


Could you post links to those studies? I'm unaware of any except some very small ones that produced results that are entirely contextual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> What makes things complicated is that people with antibodies are testing positive months later. Example...
> 
> My brother in law is a barber. He needed to take a Covid test to open his shop. On a Sunday he was told he tested positive for antibodies, and negative for the active virus. Then he gets a call on Thursday saying he’s actually positive for both.
> 
> He hasn’t been sick for over a year.
> 
> He calls the state health department to try to make some sense of it all. He was told by a higher up that they’re seeing about 50% of the people with antibodies testing positive for the active virus even though they’ve got no symptoms. Many were known symptomatic cases that were treated a while back and are over it. Some are asymptomatic people who’ve either had it or have it; there’s no reliable way to distinguish the difference.
> 
> This was a few weeks ago. SOB got me quarantined from work until I tested negative. The test sucked. They stuck that pipe cleaner so far up my nose it actually went down and just about touched my tongue. And I asked the woman administering it if it was dipped in gasoline. At least I got a few days off and didn’t lose pay or time off.


As I understand it, there are quite a few cases of folks testing positive twice, but most (like your BIL) have been largely asymptomatic the second time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> There are some people out there who hope everything a certain somebody does fails. Somehow they don’t realize that when unsaid guy fails, everyone fails right along with him.
> 
> I wasn’t a fan of 43 in any way. I would’ve done almost everything the opposite way. But I never wanted him nor anyone else to fail. I wanted him to prove me wrong. There’s a huge difference.
> 
> Not saying you nor anyone else here falls in the hope for failure camp. But they’re definitely out there, and they’re quite loud about it.


There have been some of those for each of the last few presidencies. Probably always have.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> New studies from both John Hopkins and Harvard Medical are showing hydrochloriquine relieves simptoms and works very well when used early.  The press won't talk report on it, and others deny it, but both Harvard an John Hopkins are pretty good sources, don't you think?
> 
> Look it up using the two schools I mentioned.


I looked it up.  This is what John Hopkins has stated
"According to Johns Hopkins experts, there are no significant clinical trials to date showing that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19."
"According to Johns Hopkins experts, there are no significant clinical trials to date showing that these drugs are an effective treatment against COVID-19. At least three controlled, large trials showed either no advantage or higher risk of cardiovascular complications in patients receiving the drug"

Source: Covid-19 Story Tip: Hydroxychloroquine Not Recommended for Treatment of COVID-19


August 26, 2020 from Harvard 
*Studies in human organ chips and various animal models confirm that the drug is unlikely to be effective against COVID-19 *
source: https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-inhibit-sars-cov-2-infection-in-preclinical-models/


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Could you post links to those studies? I'm unaware of any except some very small ones that produced results that are entirely contextual.


I got you covered lol.
While I was searching for the schools, I ran across a lot of sites that were pro hydroxychloroquine.  Based on what Harvard wrote.  The early test results were based on tests to see how the virus reacted to hydroxychloroquine in a dish and not how it interacts with the body and other medicines.   From what I could pick up, hydroxychloroquine doesn't go well with other medicines used to treat, other health ailments.  

The test that were done were interesting because it's like saying weed killer kills the virus in the dish, so because it kills the virus we should all drink weed killer.  Which would be fatal in the context of humans ingesting weed killer.  So yes it kills the virus but it will also kill us.    hydroxychloroquine is like that.  Yes it kills the virus, but if you take other medications or have other underlying health issues then hydroxychloroquine has a good chance of killing you along with the virus.  

I'm personally over cautious about any medicine that is rushed as a cure or prevention. Right now there is a lot of misinformation and too much of a push to take something that has been rushed an not properly studied or tested.  Here is a list of issues that come with hydroxychloroquine  even if you don't have COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine: MedlinePlus Drug Information

i've already made up my mind that I'm not taking the first batches of any Vaccine that they put out to fight COVID-19.  There's a reason why the development of Vaccines take as long as they do.  A lot of regulations and guidelines for medicine are the end results from learning lessons the hard way.  My choice was validated when the FDA stated that they were going to allow the vaccine to skip steps of approval.


----------



## Steve

As a case in point of how this has become politicized in America, we are seeing known conspiracy theorists pushing an idea that the CDC just somehow admitted to a conspiracy around the death certificates.  There are two sides: most people in the country who think we should follow the science.  And the kooks. 

I posted this video in another thread, but it really belongs here.  It's not a political video.  





"Don't misrepresent the data and make yourself and your opinions look stupid."


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> As a case in point of how this has become politicized in America, we are seeing known conspiracy theorists pushing an idea that the CDC just somehow admitted to a conspiracy around the death certificates.  There are two sides: most people in the country who think we should follow the science.  And the kooks.
> 
> I posted this video in another thread, but it really belongs here.  It's not a political video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't misrepresent the data and make yourself and your opinions look stupid."


Yep, just like the cold and Flu but funny how you never hear about that. Dude is working hard to make the data fit his BS agenda. How does a thinking person not see and understand the reverse? They have these pre-existing conditions yet C-19 Caused them? Just plain stupidly transparent.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Yep, just like the cold and Flu but funny how you never hear about that. Dude is working hard to make the data fit his BS agenda. How does a thinking person not see and understand the reverse? They have these pre-existing conditions yet C-19 Caused them? Just plain stupidly transparent.


I'm sincerely embarrassed for you.


----------



## Buka

Maybe if the mask mandate also required full costume, it would work better. It would certainly be more fun. Like a ten month long Halloween party, everybody social distancing in full character.

As much as I want to be Batman, too hot here for all the black, and I really don't have the build. 
I think I'll be The Flash instead. I think I could rock them yellow boots.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> As a case in point of how this has become politicized in America, we are seeing known conspiracy theorists pushing an idea that the CDC just somehow admitted to a conspiracy around the death certificates.  There are two sides: most people in the country who think we should follow the science.  And the kooks.
> 
> I posted this video in another thread, but it really belongs here.  It's not a political video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't misrepresent the data and make yourself and your opinions look stupid."


There's a lot of stuff like that going on.


----------



## JR 137

Buka said:


> Maybe if the mask mandate also required full costume, it would work better. It would certainly be more fun. Like a ten month long Halloween party, everybody social distancing in full character.
> 
> As much as I want to be Batman, too hot here for all the black, and I really don't have the build.
> I think I'll be The Flash instead. I think I could rock them yellow boots.


This is pretty much what I wear while working...




I really want to sneak out a whole gowning setup and wear it to a store just to see reactions. Some will most likely run away from me, thinking I’m the most contagious person on the face of the earth. Others will most likely run to me asking where I got it from. Then there’ll be the group thinking what the F is wrong with that guy.

Maybe grab a few and have a group of like 5 of us wear them into the store. People would probably panic thinking we’re an emergency response group or something. I mean, honestly, what would you do if you saw 5 guys walk into a store dressed like that? Then we’d grab shopping carts and go about our business and confuse the hell out of everyone.

Either way, it would be very entertaining. People’s reactions would be priceless.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> There's a lot of stuff like that going on.


Yeah, and it’s penetrating deeply enough we see it from some folks here.    The point being that other countries which are doing better are not politicizing the situation, and are instead letting the science lead the way.  I mean, @dvcochran  has literally just lied about it, suggesting he is getting this bunk from CNN and CNBC, when obviously he did not.  The country has gone mad.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Yep, just like the cold and Flu but funny how you never hear about that. Dude is working hard to make the data fit his BS agenda. How does a thinking person not see and understand the reverse? They have these pre-existing conditions yet C-19 Caused them? Just plain stupidly transparent.


Heart failure and lung failure do not cause COVID-19.  But COVID-19 can cause heart failure and lung failure.  There is also proof that health people and kids can die from COVID-19.    If you look at the deaths, you can find that the fast decline in health all had something in common.  And that is COVID-19.   

You could have diabetes, Friend B could have high blood pressure, Friend A could have a heart condition.  You guys live for it for 15 years with no major problems.  Then one day your friends gets COVID-19 and suddenly have a quick onset of complications that only get worse and leads to death.   You  get COVID-19 two weeks later and you get a quick onset of health complications which quickly lead to death. 

The only thing that you 2 had in common was COVID-19 and one of the common symptoms you three had was failing lung function.  But none of you had lung disease.  So yes while all of you had underlying illnesses.  None of you had lung disease, but all 3 of you died from failing lung function caused by COVID-19 

When you look at the deaths from COVID-19 you will see things like difficulty in breathing, failing lung function which is why people were being put on ventilators so that they could get assistance with breathing.  What you don't see or hear about COVID-19 is that people are getting pace makers, heart transplants, stronger diabetes medicine.

It's clear here as they say that COVID-19 is affecting respiratory functions.  But it's not the only thing that it destroys.  It also affects other organ functions.  In short it's a virus that does damage to more than one thing





There are also healthy people without underlying illnesses that die from COVID-19.
*What the lungs of COVID-19 patients look like*


*UK woman, 21, with no health issues dies from Covid-19, family say *





Source: UK woman, 21, with no health issues dies from Covid-19, family say






My guess is that younger people with no underlying illness are actually dying from a different strain of COVID-19.  They aren't getting the same strain  that causes minor symptoms.  I've read that there are 2 Strains and that there are 8 Strains of COVID 19. I'm not sure which one is accurate at the moment.  But based on some of the different symptoms that people are getting, it makes me think that there are more than one strain.  There is also a case of a person getting re infected, but I don't know if that person was reinfected with the same strain or if it was a new Strain.   My assumption is that the second infection is from a different Strain of COVID-19.  The more people that get it the more likely it will mutate into something new to catch.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Yeah, and it’s penetrating deeply enough we see it from some folks here.    The point being that other countries which are doing better are not politicizing the situation, and are instead letting the science lead the way.  I mean, @dvcochran  has literally just lied about it, suggesting he is getting this bunk from CNN and CNBC, when obviously he did not.  The country has gone mad.


Again, have you checked the CDC directly? The village idiot could understand it. 
I guess we just answered your lack of understanding.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The country has gone mad.


It truly has.
I've been on this planet for 48 years and there was a lot of stuff that I've never seen until COVID-19 landed.

Runs on the grocery stores

Multiple Hospitals at overflowing capacity

People being buried in mass graves because of a virus.

Sports seasons being cancelled.

Schools not opening 

Cities and states on lock down.

Countries on lock down

1000 people a day dying from COVID -19 ( 2018-2019 flu season 34,200 died according to the CDC.  source https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html) we are currently at 185,000+ deaths  and we still have  September, October, November, December, January 2021, February 2021, and I think March 2021.  We aren't into the 2020-2021 flu season yet.)
I never wore a mask beyond yard work before.
I never hear the US running out of Ventilators and masks

Colleges shutting down and only doing online learning,
People trusting politicians instead of subject matter trained experts.  Like literally the people who deal with things like this as a career are the ones who are seen as the least reliable but get a John Doe posting of facebook, and it's that person that people trust.
People not believing what they see with their own eyes.
2020 makes the mad hatter look like the sane one at the table.  I don't know what's worse.  All of this or the fact that Politicians think people in the U.S. will do the right thing after more than 20 of feeding conspiracies to the American citizens.  We don't even see reality in the same way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Again, have you checked the CDC directly? The village idiot could understand it.
> I guess we just answered your lack of understanding.


All I can say is, at this point, it's better to put up sources to what you claim you are seeing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Again, have you checked the CDC directly? The village idiot could understand it.
> I guess we just answered your lack of understanding.


Could you clarify for me what you're saying the CDC said? I'm jumping in late and trying to catch up.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Again, have you checked the CDC directly? The village idiot could understand it.
> I guess we just answered your lack of understanding.


Don't listen to me.  Listen to everyone else.  You're way off base.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

- I have just received a letter from my 24 hours fitness center that they files bankruptcy.

24 Hour Fitness files for bankruptcy amid pandemic, 3 Austin-area gyms to close

- This is the 1st years (in the past 12 years) that I spend summer in the Texas 105 degree heat instead of running on the California beach.






- This is the 1st time that I started to teach solo form in the past 30 years.


----------



## granfire

JowGaWolf said:


> Heart failure and lung failure do not cause COVID-19.  But COVID-19 can cause heart failure and lung failure.  There is also proof that health people and kids can die from COVID-19.    If you look at the deaths, you can find that the fast decline in health all had something in common.  And that is COVID-19.
> 
> You could have diabetes, Friend B could have high blood pressure, Friend A could have a heart condition.  You guys live for it for 15 years with no major problems.  Then one day your friends gets COVID-19 and suddenly have a quick onset of complications that only get worse and leads to death.   You  get COVID-19 two weeks later and you get a quick onset of health complications which quickly lead to death.
> 
> The only thing that you 2 had in common was COVID-19 and one of the common symptoms you three had was failing lung function.  But none of you had lung disease.  So yes while all of you had underlying illnesses.  None of you had lung disease, but all 3 of you died from failing lung function caused by COVID-19
> 
> When you look at the deaths from COVID-19 you will see things like difficulty in breathing, failing lung function which is why people were being put on ventilators so that they could get assistance with breathing.  What you don't see or hear about COVID-19 is that people are getting pace makers, heart transplants, stronger diabetes medicine.
> 
> It's clear here as they say that COVID-19 is affecting respiratory functions.  But it's not the only thing that it destroys.  It also affects other organ functions.  In short it's a virus that does damage to more than one thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also healthy people without underlying illnesses that die from COVID-19.
> *What the lungs of COVID-19 patients look like*
> 
> 
> *UK woman, 21, with no health issues dies from Covid-19, family say *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: UK woman, 21, with no health issues dies from Covid-19, family say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that younger people with no underlying illness are actually dying from a different strain of COVID-19.  They aren't getting the same strain  that causes minor symptoms.  I've read that there are 2 Strains and that there are 8 Strains of COVID 19. I'm not sure which one is accurate at the moment.  But based on some of the different symptoms that people are getting, it makes me think that there are more than one strain.  There is also a case of a person getting re infected, but I don't know if that person was reinfected with the same strain or if it was a new Strain.   My assumption is that the second infection is from a different Strain of COVID-19.  The more people that get it the more likely it will mutate into something new to catch.



With the rapid spread across the US, there is no telling how many strains we have by now. 
And we simply don't know what the virus does.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> My gosh. You are willing to say anything. I did not lie and it is an offense that you would make that claim. It is not propaganda any more than the crap you are spinning.
> As far as credibility and integrity, I fully agree. It is far past the point we start seeing some from All our media sources. I am sick and tired of opinion pieces with no backing.


You're projecting again.  I'm talking about things that exist in the real world, and have provided external information.  Other people have asked you questions that you have conveniently ignored.  Other people have provided external information. 

You're pushing talking points that have a clear path back to known conspiracy kooks. 


dvcochran said:


> CNN, CNBC, etc...,  the CDC and all other news feeds have reported this.
> Not sure what whackadoo outlet you are following but you need to pull your head out of the sand. It is the easiest information out there to understand.


Okay.  So maybe you weren't lying in your post above.  Could you please post links to where you saw or heard it reported on CNN or CNBC, or any credible news outlet (even a local news station)?  I'd love to see that, and will admit I was wrong if you produce it.


----------



## dvcochran

I will make an attempt at a different tact on my opinion. I do quite a lot of research and am obsessed with information from multiple, varying, and non-associated sources in an attempt to find the subtleties and inconsistencies. Very, very little of my data mining is from political sources. This would come in the form of political advisors, such as Fauci. This is the main reason I post very few links. For any one link someone post, there are 10 out there that will counter the information so what is the point? Youtube is great, but a hard source of information? No.

I do read the post here and I am truly sorry for loss of life anyone has encountered this year regardless of cause. I apologize if I sounded insensitive to some. 

I am a very data driven person. It is what I have done as a profession for over 30 years. I am forced to understand there is a difference between statistics and relevant data. The former can have virtually any result, the latter is accurate, usable information. More often than not adding or changing one variable changes everything in an accurate data model. Tracked data that does not create change is superfluous and just mucks things up, thus is factored out. 

In regards to the topic at hand there are a Lot of statistics out there but not a ton of discernable data. Hard numbers that stand on their own are very hard to find. Numbers that have been coalesced with other data points are living large. And they are being used and manipulated in all sorts of manner. I am sorry if some of you do not understand this. The most relevant comparison I can think of is how data on cold and Flu are completely rolled up into the C-19 numbers. 

There has been a higher than average number of deaths in my family and extended family this year. Some had C-19, some even at the time of death, but none died with C-19 as the cause of death. I have found that quite curious based on the explanations of COVID 19 by many. We have had friends die from the virus, one was a 2 year old so yes, it is here and it is real. 

I fully believe C-19 is a killer and has and will kill again. 
I fully believe the same for the countless number of Flu strains that have killed this year, which we supposedly have vaccines for. Many of which also complicated pre-existing conditions.
I fully believe C-19 has been epidemic and/or pandemic in level or quantity on it's own. 
I fully believe the professional societies do not yet understand the virus and it's possible constituent strains and are working hard to learn more about it. 
I fully believe the media is doing what the media does and using Any source, made up or otherwise, to make the daily news, causing a great spread of misinformation. 
I fully believe this is our greatest problem from the social information standpoint. 
I fully believe there is a heavy amount of political motive involved in higher level decisions regarding the virus in the U.S. causing polarized opinions and division.

I watched a local news feed this morning that stated the U.S. has stockpiled hundreds of thousands of vials of a vaccine that is being held up for whatever reasons. I suspect politics is a data point in understanding the reasons for the wait, along with many other data points. 
If the vaccine was available tomorrow I would not take it. I am not the kind of person who risks one unknown for another. I will let others be the guinea pig. Of course this logic is easy when you are not staring death in the face. Akin to taking a cancer drug.

I appreciate and enjoy the forum. The last thing I intend to do is push anyone away from it. 
That said, it is no secret Steve and I do not get along and I do not see that changing. He consistently plants seeds in his posts to get a reaction and then runs with comments people make about them, in all sorts of twisted manner. Pure printed manipulation. A shock jock. I see people doing this on every forum I frequent regardless of topic and I am quick to call anyone out I see doing this. 
Why do I care? Because I am a very morally and ethically bound person. Simple as that.


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> With the rapid spread across the US, there is no telling how many strains we have by now.
> And we simply don't know what the virus does.


Well, we know what it has done, and we know that it is very contagious.  We know it can be a lot more dangerous to people than the cold or the flu.  We know that masks help prevent the spread, along with simple things like washing one's hands.  We know that countries that were cautious are doing a lot better than countries that are not.  Look at Sweden, which tried the herd immunity route, or the USA, which we can see in this thread is no surprise when propaganda so easily makes its way into the discussion.

What hasn't been determined yet, as far as I've seen, is how quickly this virus mutates, which will determine how effective a vaccine might be.  It looks like some promising progress has been made in this area, but I think it's a little too early to tell.  We haven't determined the long term effects on folks who survive the virus yet, though there is some indication that permanent lung damage and other things like that could result.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I will make an attempt at a different tact on my opinion. I do quite a lot of research and am obsessed with information from multiple, varying, and non-associated sources in an attempt to find the subtleties and inconsistencies. Very, very little of my data mining is from political sources. This would come in the form of political advisors, such as Fauci. This is the main reason I post very few links. For any one link someone post, there are 10 out there that will counter the information so what is the point? Youtube is great, but a hard source of information? No.
> 
> I do read the post here and I am truly sorry for loss of life anyone has encountered this year regardless of cause. I apologize if I sounded insensitive to some.
> 
> I am a very data driven person. It is what I have done as a profession for over 30 years. I am forced to understand there is a difference between statistics and relevant data. The former can have virtually any result, the latter is accurate, usable information. More often than not adding or changing one variable changes everything in an accurate data model. Tracked data that does not create change is superfluous and just mucks things up, thus is factored out.
> 
> In regards to the topic at hand there are a Lot of statistics out there but not a ton of discernable data. Hard numbers that stand on their own are very hard to find. Numbers that have been coalesced with other data points are living large. And they are being used and manipulated in all sorts of manner. I am sorry if some of you do not understand this. The most relevant comparison I can think of is how data on cold and Flu are completely rolled up into the C-19 numbers.
> 
> There has been a higher than average number of deaths in my family and extended family this year. Some had C-19, some even at the time of death, but none died with C-19 as the cause of death. I have found that quite curious based on the explanations of COVID 19 by many. We have had friends die from the virus, one was a 2 year old so yes, it is here and it is real.
> 
> I fully believe C-19 is a killer and has and will kill again.
> I fully believe the same for the countless number of Flu strains that have killed this year, which we supposedly have vaccines for. Many of which also complicated pre-existing conditions.
> I fully believe C-19 has been epidemic and/or pandemic in level or quantity on it's own.
> I fully believe the professional societies do not yet understand the virus and it's possible constituent strains and are working hard to learn more about it.
> I fully believe the media is doing what the media does and using Any source, made up or otherwise, to make the daily news, causing a great spread of misinformation.
> I fully believe this is our greatest problem from the social information standpoint.
> I fully believe there is a heavy amount of political motive involved in higher level decisions regarding the virus in the U.S. causing polarized opinions and division.
> 
> I watched a local news feed this morning that stated the U.S. has stockpiled hundreds of thousands of vials of a vaccine that is being held up for whatever reasons. I suspect politics is a data point in understanding the reasons for the wait, along with many other data points.
> If the vaccine was available tomorrow I would not take it. I am not the kind of person who risks one unknown for another. I will let others be the guinea pig. Of course this logic is easy when you are not staring death in the face. Akin to taking a cancer drug.
> 
> I appreciate and enjoy the forum. The last thing I intend to do is push anyone away from it.
> That said, it is no secret Steve and I do not get along and I do not see that changing. He consistently plants seeds in his posts to get a reaction and then runs with comments people make about them, in all sorts of twisted manner. Pure printed manipulation. A shock jock. I see people doing this on every forum I frequent regardless of topic and I am quick to call anyone out I see doing this.
> Why do I care? Because I am a very morally and ethically bound person. Simple as that.


While the picture says 99% of it, I'll just point out that you shared absolutely no actual information in your post above.  You talk a lot ABOUT data.  You talk a lot ABOUT statistics.  But you share none.  Hmmm...


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> Well, we know what it has done, and we know that it is very contagious.  We know it can be a lot more dangerous to people than the cold or the flu.  We know that masks help prevent the spread, along with simple things like washing one's hands.  We know that countries that were cautious are doing a lot better than countries that are not.  Look at Sweden, which tried the herd immunity route, or the USA, which we can see in this thread is no surprise when propaganda so easily makes its way into the discussion.
> 
> What hasn't been determined yet, as far as I've seen, is how quickly this virus mutates, which will determine how effective a vaccine might be.  It looks like some promising progress has been made in this area, but I think it's a little too early to tell.  We haven't determined the long term effects on folks who survive the virus yet, though there is some indication that permanent lung damage and other things like that could result.



We know what it can do.
We don't know why, or to whom.
We think we have an idea, then something else pops up.
And naturally, there is the overlooked fact that the damage the virus does might very well be permanent.

There are estimates on the rate of mutation. Not very fast, but that was also assuming people would do their utmost to limit the spread. Not throw parties and defy distancing orders and in essence accelerate the rate of infection. 
there were numbers floating around between 2 and 8 a few months ago.

And since the numbers aren't correct in any case, due to various reasons (almost all political) we are fighting an uphill battle


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> While the picture says 99% of it, I'll just point out that you shared absolutely no actual information in your post above.  You talk a lot ABOUT data.  You talk a lot ABOUT statistics.  But you share none.  Hmmm...


Of course. That is your job, and anyone else seeking truth instead of wanting to be spoon fed possible misinformation.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Of course. That is your job, and anyone else seeking truth instead of wanting to be spoon fed possible misinformation.


Folks are trying to educate you, but you refuse to learn.  Not just me, though you can't seem to see that.  Several folks are asking you questions you won't answer, and sharing information with you that you won't, or perhaps, can't acknowledge.





And I'm still waiting for those links to the articles or videos on CNN and CNBC that you said you saw, when you were trying to normalize the propaganda that you shared without any critical thought or judgement. 

Heck, at this point, I'd settle for a credible, external source for any of your assertions.  As I said before, this is about more than just simple disagreement at this point.  You're assurances that you are "deeply moral and ethical" ring false, given that you cannot seem to tell the truth, and you won't support any of your hairbrained assertions with independently verifiable evidence.  Literally every insult you sling at me is reflected in your own behavior.  You are not credible at this point and, in fact, appear to be entirely unreasonable.

Edit:  Except for the "insult" you posted above.  That one, I'll gladly accept.  While not my job, I am very glad we agree that I share actual information and actual statistics to support my posts.  That's a good thing.  That you think otherwise is alarming.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Folks are trying to educate you, but you refuse to learn.  Not just me, though you can't seem to see that.  Several folks are asking you questions you won't answer, and sharing information with you that you won't, or perhaps, can't acknowledge.
> 
> View attachment 23099
> 
> And I'm still waiting for those links to the articles or videos on CNN and CNBC that you said you saw, when you were trying to normalize the propaganda that you shared without any critical thought or judgement.
> 
> Heck, at this point, I'd settle for a credible, external source for any of your assertions.  As I said before, this is about more than just simple disagreement at this point.  You're assurances that you are "deeply moral and ethical" ring false, given that you cannot seem to tell the truth, and you won't support any of your hairbrained assertions with independently verifiable evidence.  Literally every insult you sling at me is reflected in your own behavior.  You are not credible at this point and, in fact, appear to be entirely unreasonable.
> 
> Edit:  Except for the "insult" you posted above.  That one, I'll gladly accept.  While not my job, I am very glad we agree that I share actual information and actual statistics to support my posts.  That's a good thing.  That you think otherwise is alarming.


Um yeah, meme's are such credible information. But I do love many of MLK's quotes. 
Like I said again and again, why can't you go to the sites you reference yourself and find the information? It is not at all difficult. I am not going to do your work for you. That is simply part of the problem. 

Go ahead with your attempts to discredit me. I have attacked you personally so it is justified. It does not change my opinion of you however.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Of course. That is your job, and anyone else seeking truth instead of wanting to be spoon fed possible misinformation.


If I'm looking for information that disagrees with what I think I know, why wouldn't I seek it from someone who says they have exactly that? Why refuse to help someone gather data? I'm truly confused.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Um yeah, meme's are such credible information. But I do love many of MLK's quotes.
> Like I said again and again, why can't you go to the sites you reference yourself and find the information? It is not at all difficult. I am not going to do your work for you. That is simply part of the problem.
> 
> Go ahead with your attempts to discredit me. I have attacked you personally so it is justified. It does not change my opinion of you however.


If he goes there and can't find it, do you prefer he assume it doesn't exist, or do you want to point him to it, so he can include that information in his opinion?


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Um yeah, meme's are such credible information. But I do love many of MLK's quotes.
> Like I said again and again, why can't you go to the sites you reference yourself and find the information? It is not at all difficult. I am not going to do your work for you. That is simply part of the problem.
> 
> Go ahead with your attempts to discredit me. I have attacked you personally so it is justified. It does not change my opinion of you however.


I'm presenting information.  Other folks are, too.  You're not.  No one's doing anything "to" you.  

No one is making you lie about your sources.  No one is making you take increasingly severe positions that are clearly in conflict with the scientific community.  No one is forcing you to do that.  You're choosing to do that to yourself. Look, man.  I get it.  Your self image is pretty obvious, but you're acting like a victim here.  You clearly consider yourself to be a man of integrity, but you're not acting with integrity now.  You consider yourself to be a rational person who considers information, but you are clearly getting your information in some kind of a direct line from known propaganda outlets and fringe conspiracy theorists.  When asked for sources, you get defensive and lash out.  

I said once before that I think you could benefit from talking to a pro about some stuff.  I still think that's true.  You've got some huge blind spots, and a trained therapist can help you identify those and be a better person.  There is no stigma (or should be no stigma) to this.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I watched a local news feed this morning that stated the U.S. has stockpiled hundreds of thousands of vials of a vaccine that is being held up for whatever reasons.


Case in point.  You "watched a local news feed this morning".  Which one?  Can you share a link to this story you saw?  I found a link to my local news channel without any problem at all. 

And for what it's worth, when I searched for anything about stockpiling vaccines, I got some results from unknown websites that I didn't bother to check, and Fox Business (aka, Fox News).  US stockpiling 3 different types of coronavirus vaccines through 'Operation Warp Speed'

Interestingly, the Fox News link included strikingly similar language you use above: "The U.S. has already manufactured and stockpiled "hundreds of thousands of doses" of coronavirus vaccines in the hopes that one will be effective in combating the virus, a senior administration official said Tuesday." (the embedded quotation marks were in the article, indicating that they are a quote, and so are not necessarily verified independently.)


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - I have just received a letter from my 24 hours fitness center that they files bankruptcy.
> 
> 24 Hour Fitness files for bankruptcy amid pandemic, 3 Austin-area gyms to close
> 
> - This is the 1st years (in the past 12 years) that I spend summer in the Texas 105 degree heat instead of running on the California beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - This is the 1st time that I started to teach solo form in the past 30 years.



I have such wonderful memories of Pismo Beach. Always loved that place. Even the name.


----------



## Bruce7

I am old and my neighbors are old. 
The guy that lives in front of me is a very nice man in his 80's with a wife thats not able to get out of the house, he told me covid is a HOAX.
Then he told me the death numbers was fake news.
I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to argue with him. It would not do any good , Fox news is on every time I have been at his house.
I am afraid for him and his wife.


----------



## Bruce7

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *What's wrong in US?*
> 
> Sanjay Gupta: "There will be people who became infected" after attending Trump's RNC speech



This is an important subject, thank you for your post


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - I have just received a letter from my 24 hours fitness center that they files bankruptcy.
> 
> 24 Hour Fitness files for bankruptcy amid pandemic, 3 Austin-area gyms to close
> 
> - This is the 1st years (in the past 12 years) that I spend summer in the Texas 105 degree heat instead of running on the California beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - This is the 1st time that I started to teach solo form in the past 30 years.


Good news is that you know the Solo form.  Now we know what forms are good for lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> This would come in the form of political advisors, such as Fauci.


I don't even understand this Fauci is not a political advisor.  Fauci has never made statements about what is the best political approach.  *This is Fauci's career* "Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies."  The only reason we see him in white house press conferences is because as go good leader and basically a good manager of things.  You bring experts in to give their knowledge on things you don't know about.



granfire said:


> We know what it can do.
> We don't know why, or to whom.
> We think we have an idea, then something else pops up.
> And naturally, there is the overlooked fact that the damage the virus does might very well be permanent.
> 
> There are estimates on the rate of mutation. Not very fast, but that was also assuming people would do their utmost to limit the spread. Not throw parties and defy distancing orders and in essence accelerate the rate of infection.
> there were numbers floating around between 2 and 8 a few months ago.
> 
> And since the numbers aren't correct in any case, due to various reasons (almost all political) we are fighting an uphill battle


There were only 2 things I needed to know.  1 it kills people, and 2 they don't know anything about it.   So for me that just screams.. Do my best not to get it.

Sort of like how Timex (the watch company) used to use radioactive material in their watches.   The knew what it does, but didn't know much about until after people started dying.  
Mae Keane, One Of The Last 'Radium Girls,' Dies At 107

Science has a way of learning things the hard way.. So while they explore, I'm going to do my best not to get it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Very, very little of my data mining is from political sources. This would come in the form of political advisors, such as Fauci. This is the main reason I post very few links. For any one link someone post, there are 10 out there that will counter the information so what is the point?


Facui isn't a political advisor.

When you claim that CNN, MSNBC, Dr.Fauci, or CDC say something, You don't need compare multiple sources of information.. You only need to show where on CNN, MSNBC, or CDC. they make the statement that you claim they did.    If you say that Dr. Faucci made a ridiculous statement about something, then you only need to show where he's quoted in a reliable source or show a video of him actually saying it.  Either one would work because news networks who were present could confirm the quotes.

Why would go to multiple sources to compare information?  He either said it or he didn't.  If he said it, then you should be able to find multiple evidence of him actually making statements.  If he didn't say it, then you won't find such evidence.  Which is why when you don't don't post a source, people assume that you don't know what you are talking about.


dvcochran said:


> I will make an attempt at a different tact on my opinion. I do quite a lot of research and am obsessed with information from multiple, varying, and non-associated sources in an attempt to find the subtleties and inconsistencies.


 If you can quote the CDC, CNN, Dr.Fauci, or MSNBC and show the source of where they made the statements then there's no need to look at varying information from non-associated sources.  When you see me actually use Kung Fu in a video then why would you go to some non-associated source in attempt to find inconsistencies.  I can guarantee that if I make the same claims about my martial arts skills in an MMA forum (without videos), that youll see alot of inconsistencies of what people think vs what people have seen me do.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bruce7 said:


> I am old and my neighbors are old.
> The guy that lives in front of me is a very nice man in his 80's with a wife thats not able to get out of the house, he told me covid is a HOAX.
> Then he told me the death numbers was fake news.
> I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to argue with him. It would not do any good , Fox news is on every time I have been at his house.
> I am afraid for him and his wife.


There's not much you can do to change his mind.  People like that who don't use critical thinking skills to think things through aren't going to  change their minds.   Trying to stay in line the the Rules here.  Just highlighting how people know of the danger and still put out stuff like this.  When I heard Hermain Cain was sick, I was hoping that he would make it through in hopes that going through it, would make him speak about the reality of COVID-19, but unfortuanltely he didn't survive it.  Things didn't go his way nor my way.  I think he would have put away the games and the crazy talk if he would have survived.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> There's not much you can do to change his mind.  People like that who don't use critical thinking skills to think things through aren't going to  change their minds.   Trying to stay in line the the Rules here.  Just highlighting how people know of the danger and still put out stuff like this.  When I heard Hermain Cain was sick, I was hoping that he would make it through in hopes that going through it, would make him speak about the reality of COVID-19, but unfortuanltely he didn't survive it.  Things didn't go his way nor my way.  I think he would have put away the games and the crazy talk if he would have survived.


But to make it worse, someone is posting hyper partisan tweets from his account posthumously, including this one, pushing the very misinformation we've been discussing.  This is in incredibly poor taste:



I should mention that this tweet has since been deleted, but there are plenty of others, since his account has been resurrected (no pun intended).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> But to make it worse, someone is posting hyper partisan tweets from his account posthumously, including this one, pushing the very misinformation we've been discussing.  This is in incredibly poor taste:
> 
> View attachment 23101
> 
> I should mention that this tweet has since been deleted, but there are plenty of others, since his account has been resurrected (no pun intended).


They keep trying to blame deaths on underlying causes.  My guess "underlying causes" also include "Catching a cold," sore throat, bronchitis, the flu and other illnesses that people usually get in the winter. If this is accurate then look at the age groups that are most likely affected.  Colds also cause respiratory issue.  If my thought's about this are correct then we could see a large number of younger people die from COVID-19.  Unfortunately no one has asked the question  "What are my chances of beating COVID-19 if I have a cold"


----------



## JowGaWolf

*Can You Get Two Colds at Once?* (source: Can You Get Two Colds at Once?)

From the link above.
"In 2009, scientists were able to sequence all of the genetic material from the 99 known strains of rhinovirus. They found that coinfection with multiple strains is a common occurrence. They also found that coinfection provided viruses an opportunity to mutate into new strains.

Diagnostic tests for many of the viruses that cause colds have now become commercially available. In 2013, doctors used these tests to study 225 children in day care. Almost half were infected with more than one virus when they got sick. Children infected with multiple viruses did not appear to be sicker than those infected with a single virus, but they stayed sick longer. These findings were recently confirmed by a systematic review of all published studies."


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> Facui isn't a political advisor.
> 
> When you claim that CNN, MSNBC, Dr.Fauci, or CDC say something, You don't need compare multiple sources of information.. You only need to show where on CNN, MSNBC, or CDC. they make the statement that you claim they did.    If you say that Dr. Faucci made a ridiculous statement about something, then you only need to show where he's quoted in a reliable source or show a video of him actually saying it.  Either one would work because news networks who were present could confirm the quotes.
> 
> Why would go to multiple sources to compare information?  He either said it or he didn't.  If he said it, then you should be able to find multiple evidence of him actually making statements.  If he didn't say it, then you won't find such evidence.  Which is why when you don't don't post a source, people assume that you don't know what you are talking about.
> If you can quote the CDC, CNN, Dr.Fauci, or MSNBC and show the source of where they made the statements then there's no need to look at varying information from non-associated sources.  When you see me actually use Kung Fu in a video then why would you go to some non-associated source in attempt to find inconsistencies.  I can guarantee that if I make the same claims about my martial arts skills in an MMA forum (without videos), that youll see alot of inconsistencies of what people think vs what people have seen me do.



This is exactly what has been going on from you and steve with the links you have included. They are from all over the place.



JowGaWolf said:


> Why would go to multiple sources to compare information?


Let me ask you this; if you use Youtube or another site for video information (any information for that matter) do you just take the first video you watch on the topic as fact? Of course not. On average half or more will be partly or completely wrong. You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.

Sadly, " he either said it or he didn't" isn't reliable in this day and age. Once the spin doctors get hold of something it has a completely different meaning, even from the source. Just like in one of Steve's videos; it was a total strangers interpretation. Was it right or wrong? I have no idea.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't even understand this Fauci is not a political advisor.  Fauci has never made statements about what is the best political approach.  *This is Fauci's career* "Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies."  The only reason we see him in white house press conferences is because as go good leader and basically a good manager of things.  You bring experts in to give their knowledge on things you don't know about.
> 
> 
> There were only 2 things I needed to know.  1 it kills people, and 2 they don't know anything about it.   So for me that just screams.. Do my best not to get it.
> 
> Sort of like how Timex (the watch company) used to use radioactive material in their watches.   The knew what it does, but didn't know much about until after people started dying.
> Mae Keane, One Of The Last 'Radium Girls,' Dies At 107
> 
> Science has a way of learning things the hard way.. So while they explore, I'm going to do my best not to get it.


Fauci is an adviser to politicians. It is that simple. His recommendations are being used at the highest levels. What else would you call him?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Case in point.  You "watched a local news feed this morning".  Which one?  Can you share a link to this story you saw?  I found a link to my local news channel without any problem at all.
> 
> And for what it's worth, when I searched for anything about stockpiling vaccines, I got some results from unknown websites that I didn't bother to check, and Fox Business (aka, Fox News).  US stockpiling 3 different types of coronavirus vaccines through 'Operation Warp Speed'
> 
> Interestingly, the Fox News link included strikingly similar language you use above: "The U.S. has already manufactured and stockpiled "hundreds of thousands of doses" of coronavirus vaccines in the hopes that one will be effective in combating the virus, a senior administration official said Tuesday." (the embedded quotation marks were in the article, indicating that they are a quote, and so are not necessarily verified independently.)


So what is your point? You just made my point for me. A news affiliate reported the information. What more do you need? 
I did not run with the first source of information however. It is all over the web if you know how to use it. 
Another failed attempt to shadow the truth.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I'm presenting information.  Other folks are, too.  You're not.  No one's doing anything "to" you.
> 
> No one is making you lie about your sources.  No one is making you take increasingly severe positions that are clearly in conflict with the scientific community.  No one is forcing you to do that.  You're choosing to do that to yourself. Look, man.  I get it.  Your self image is pretty obvious, but you're acting like a victim here.  You clearly consider yourself to be a man of integrity, but you're not acting with integrity now.  You consider yourself to be a rational person who considers information, but you are clearly getting your information in some kind of a direct line from known propaganda outlets and fringe conspiracy theorists.  When asked for sources, you get defensive and lash out.
> 
> I said once before that I think you could benefit from talking to a pro about some stuff.  I still think that's true.  You've got some huge blind spots, and a trained therapist can help you identify those and be a better person.  There is no stigma (or should be no stigma) to this.


You are correct no one is making me lie because I simply am not. You post some of the most vague sources of information I have ever seen, many I have never heard of. I am telling you to research the main sources and you are afraid to do even that. It doesn't take a genius to see just who is looking long and deep for confirmation from where ever they can find it. 
You are correct that I have to go to depths that I do not enjoy going in order to counter your crap. You seem to enjoy scary places void of integrity based on the stuff you post.  
Propaganda is an accurate word for most of what you post. How is simply saying check the main news sources getting defensive and "lashing out"?

Dude. You are in no position to suggest counseling to anyone and I am pretty sure you know that. You have one of the scariest mentalities I have ever encountered so maybe it is you who needs the counseling? Possibly you have some form of PTSD that you need to vent?


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> If he goes there and can't find it, do you prefer he assume it doesn't exist, or do you want to point him to it, so he can include that information in his opinion?


I give him more credit than that. I am perplexed that anyone is finding the information hard to find.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> If I'm looking for information that disagrees with what I think I know, why wouldn't I seek it from someone who says they have exactly that? Why refuse to help someone gather data? I'm truly confused.


Fair enough. It has do to with the "spoon fed" references made earlier.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> They keep trying to blame deaths on underlying causes.  My guess "underlying causes" also include "Catching a cold," sore throat, bronchitis, the flu and other illnesses that people usually get in the winter. If this is accurate then look at the age groups that are most likely affected.  Colds also cause respiratory issue.  If my thought's about this are correct then we could see a large number of younger people die from COVID-19.  Unfortunately no one has asked the question  "What are my chances of beating COVID-19 if I have a cold"
> 
> View attachment 23102


I may be way off, as my understanding here is pretty thin, but I don't think it's possible - at least not very likely - to get two coronavirus infections at the same time. At least 4 of the major viruses responsible for the common cold are coronaviruses. The spike proteins are similar enough they likely bind to cells the same way, so would compete with each other. And there's some evidence that the antibodies for one may have some effect against the other - not for immunity, but for reducing the viral load, which generally translates to a less intense illness.

So recent exposure to a cold virus may actually reduce the severity of COVID-19. So far as I know, that's still all entirely hypothetical, and it's unlikely they'll figure a way to test it any time soon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> I give him more credit than that. I am perplexed that anyone is finding the information hard to find.


I haven't found it, unless I'm seeing the same thing you are, and simply seeing something different in the data.


----------



## Steve

At this point, @dvcochran , you're imploding.  The first step to getting out of a self inflicted hole is to stop digging.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> This is exactly what has been going on from you and steve with the links you have included. They are from all over the place.


Nope it's not the same thing. * I'm not comparing multiple websites in order to see what inconsistencies between those websites.*  I've been using websites that have a history of being accurate and when they aren't accurate they have a history of identifying their inaccuracies, admitting it, and then correcting it.  I didn't compare any of the resources to Fox news in order to find out what they had in common and what they don't have in common.  That's not how I seek the truth about things.  I don't go to Fox News or CNN to try to find out what the CDC says.  I prefer to go straight to the CDC and get it directly from the source. 

Most of the websites I posted were from reliable medical and health resources.  CDC, John Hopkins,  Harvard Medical and reliable news sources NPR, CNN ,and Time Magazine which are both known for their standard of seeking accuracy.  They also will often post links to their sources as well so that people can dig deep into information if they so desire. 

Steve has similar posts.  He posted a screenshot that was made on Herman Cains tweeter account.  He also posted a link from the BBC, FDA.gov, John Hopkins and another News source that I'm not familiar with.  He didn't go to the CNN to post a FDA quote.  He just went straight to the source.

When we post sources it's no longer about an Opinion. When I brought my Opinion into the mix, I made it clear that it was my thought.  I didn't post any links that said you can can get a Cold and Covid-19 at the same time.  That's clearly just my opinion or Theory about what I thought may be of serious concern.   After I posted that it my own questioning made me  wonder just how realistic is it to have a Cold and COVID-19 at the same time.   I took a look at the same medical and news resources and was surprised that my concerns / worries were actually fairly accurately.  I took what I know about Colds, Viruses, and the unpredictability of COVID-19 and that it acts like nothing the doctors have previously seen, which is why they say they don't know anything about it.   If I don't know anything about a snake, then I'm going to treat it as something dangerous until I can learn more about it.  I'm the same way with Viruses.  It's better to be Cautious than Reckless.  I rather be surprised to learn that something is harmless than to be surprised to learn that something is dangerous.  But that's just me, and that's why I  think of the Cold as being an "underlying illness."  But I made it clear that this is my thinking.  I didn't try to pass it off as FACT.



dvcochran said:


> Let me ask you this; if you use Youtube or another site for video information (any information for that matter) do you just take the first video you watch on the topic as fact? Of course not. On average half or more will be partly or completely wrong. You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.


Actually when I go to Youtube Videos I try to look for videos from reliable sources.  I skipped over tons videos not because I was comparing what was in it.  I skipped over them because it didn't say, BBC, CDC, JohnHopkins, or some other reliable resource.  There was no comparison in involved. It's like buying Jewelry.  If you want costume Jewelry then you walk past all of the real Jewelry stores.  If you want real Jewelry then you past all of the costume jewelry stores..

If you go to a reliable video source on Youtube, then on average more than half of your information that you get will be partly or completely accurate.  Provided that the organization deals with the information that you seek.  I don't go to a medical site to learn about Kung Fu.  To do so, doesn't make the medical site inaccurate.  It just makes the medical site irrelevant to Kung Fu.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope it's not the same thing. * I'm not comparing multiple websites in order to see what inconsistencies between those websites.*  I've been using websites that have a history of being accurate and when they aren't accurate they have a history of identifying their inaccuracies, admitting it, and then correcting it.  I didn't compare any of the resources to Fox news in order to find out what they had in common and what they don't have in common.  That's not how I seek the truth about things.  I don't go to Fox News or CNN to try to find out what the CDC says.  I prefer to go straight to the CDC and get it directly from the source.
> 
> Most of the websites I posted were from reliable medical and health resources.  CDC, John Hopkins,  Harvard Medical and reliable news sources NPR, CNN ,and Time Magazine which are both known for their standard of seeking accuracy.  They also will often post links to their sources as well so that people can dig deep into information if they so desire.
> 
> Steve has similar posts.  He posted a screenshot that was made on Herman Cains tweeter account.  He also posted a link from the BBC, FDA.gov, John Hopkins and another News source that I'm not familiar with.  He didn't go to the CNN to post a FDA quote.  He just went straight to the source.
> 
> When we post sources it's no longer about an Opinion. When I brought my Opinion into the mix, I made it clear that it was my thought.  I didn't post any links that said you can can get a Cold and Covid-19 at the same time.  That's clearly just my opinion or Theory about what I thought may be of serious concern.   After I posted that it my own questioning made me  wonder just how realistic is it to have a Cold and COVID-19 at the same time.   I took a look at the same medical and news resources and was surprised that my concerns / worries were actually fairly accurately.  I took what I know about Colds, Viruses, and the unpredictability of COVID-19 and that it acts like nothing the doctors have previously seen, which is why they say they don't know anything about it.   If I don't know anything about a snake, then I'm going to treat it as something dangerous until I can learn more about it.  I'm the same way with Viruses.  It's better to be Cautious than Reckless.  I rather be surprised to learn that something is harmless than to be surprised to learn that something is dangerous.  But that's just me, and that's why I  think of the Cold as being an "underlying illness."  But I made it clear that this is my thinking.  I didn't try to pass it off as FACT.
> 
> 
> Actually when I go to Youtube Videos I try to look for videos from reliable sources.  I skipped over tons videos not because I was comparing what was in it.  I skipped over them because it didn't say, BBC, CDC, JohnHopkins, or some other reliable resource.  There was no comparison in involved. It's like buying Jewelry.  If you want costume Jewelry then you walk past all of the real Jewelry stores.  If you want real Jewelry then you past all of the costume jewelry stores..
> 
> If you go to a reliable video source on Youtube, then on average more than half of your information that you get will be partly or completely accurate.  Provided that the organization deals with the information that you seek.  I don't go to a medical site to learn about Kung Fu.  To do so, doesn't make the medical site inaccurate.  It just makes the medical site irrelevant to Kung Fu.



And that is the difference in opinion. I do not consider NPR or Time Magazine accurate sources. Time is down right unscrupulous.

If you are not fact checking from various sources and only using the same sources over and over you are doing exactly what the elderly gentleman Bruce7 mentioned was doing. You are getting your information in a vacuum. How is that accurate?

I admit I had to laugh at the jewelry analogy. Some of the worst junk jewelry out there is sold at the 'high end' jewelry stores. But I get your point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.


This deserves it's own section.  This is not how you determine correct information.  Neither you nor I have the knowledge or the experience of an epidemiologist to "Determine" what is correct information about a virus and pandemics. The only way you can even begin to do that is to work and study in the same field that they do.  They are the experts of viral  studies not us.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> This deserves it's own section.  This is not how you determine correct information.  Neither you nor I have the knowledge or the experience of an epidemiologist to "Determine" what is correct information about a virus and pandemics. The only way you can even begin to do that is to work and study in the same field that they do.  They are the experts of viral  studies not us.


Yes, that is the best and only real way to determine a value, such as information. There is no 'one source'. 
True enough; I wasn't talking about the virus specifically but more information in general. My use of Youtube and such is mostly control and automation related. Sources such as a manufacturer are good but often limited. Gleaning 'how to's' and how others have solved complex problems is more my normal search. There are few common sources.

I cannot help but feel we are saying much the same thing though. I originally suggested going direct to the CDC for reference but that did not seem good enough. So I suggested the common news feeds. That did not seem good enough either.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> At this point, @dvcochran , you're imploding.  The first step to getting out of a self inflicted hole is to stop digging.


Right behind you my man. And you do not know me so your opinion is, well nothing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Fauci is an adviser to politicians. It is that simple. His recommendations are being used at the highest levels. What else would you call him?



*Political Advisor Career*
Source: Political Advisor Career Information and College Majors
"*A job as a Political Advisor falls under the broader career category of Political Scientists."

*Job Description for Political Scientists : * Study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. May study topics, such as public opinion, political decision-making, and ideology. May analyze the structure and operation of governments, as well as various political entities. May conduct public opinion surveys, analyze election results, or analyze public documents.

*What Political Scientists do:*

Consult with and advise government officials, civic bodies, research agencies, the media, political parties, and others *concerned with political issues. *
Evaluate programs and policies, and make related recommendations to institutions and organizations.
Identify issues for research and analysis.
Interpret and analyze policies, public issues, legislation, or the operations of governments, businesses, and organizations.
Maintain current knowledge of government policy decisions.
Provide media commentary or criticism related to public policy and political issues and events.
Disseminate research results through academic publications, written reports, or public presentations.
*Forecast political, economic, and social trends.*
*Teach political science*.
*Collect, analyze, and interpret data such as election results and public opinion surveys, reporting on findings, recommendations, and conclusions*.
*Develop and test theories, using information from interviews, newspapers, periodicals, case law, historical papers, polls, or statistical sources. *
Write drafts of legislative proposals, and prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.

*Political Scientists*
Source: Political Scientists :     Occupational Outlook Handbook: :     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
*What Political Scientists Do *
Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems.

* Work Environment*
Political scientists typically work full time in an office. They sometimes work additional hours to finish reports and meet deadlines.

* How to Become a Political Scientist*
Political scientists *need a master’s degree or Ph.D. in political science, public administration, or a related field*.


*Doctor Faucis' Job Title*
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director
*He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. *The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.

Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> And that is the difference in opinion. I do not consider NPR or Time Magazine accurate sources. Time is down right unscrupulous.


NPR is accurate enough to admit when they make a mistake and then to correct it.  Not only that but they make their mistakes known as well as their corrections.  That in itself shows how they feel about being accurate.
NPR Corrections : NPR

NPR's Ethics Handbook (Homepage https://www.npr.org/series/688409791/npr-ethics-handbook.  It's a lot)

Parts from the handbook about accuracy
Accuracy


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> *Political Advisor Career*
> Source: Political Advisor Career Information and College Majors
> "*A job as a Political Advisor falls under the broader career category of Political Scientists."
> 
> *Job Description for Political Scientists : * Study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. May study topics, such as public opinion, political decision-making, and ideology. May analyze the structure and operation of governments, as well as various political entities. May conduct public opinion surveys, analyze election results, or analyze public documents.
> 
> *What Political Scientists do:*
> 
> Consult with and advise government officials, civic bodies, research agencies, the media, political parties, and others *concerned with political issues. *
> Evaluate programs and policies, and make related recommendations to institutions and organizations.
> Identify issues for research and analysis.
> Interpret and analyze policies, public issues, legislation, or the operations of governments, businesses, and organizations.
> Maintain current knowledge of government policy decisions.
> Provide media commentary or criticism related to public policy and political issues and events.
> Disseminate research results through academic publications, written reports, or public presentations.
> *Forecast political, economic, and social trends.*
> *Teach political science*.
> *Collect, analyze, and interpret data such as election results and public opinion surveys, reporting on findings, recommendations, and conclusions*.
> *Develop and test theories, using information from interviews, newspapers, periodicals, case law, historical papers, polls, or statistical sources. *
> Write drafts of legislative proposals, and prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.
> 
> *Political Scientists*
> Source: Political Scientists :     Occupational Outlook Handbook: :     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> *What Political Scientists Do *
> Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems.
> 
> * Work Environment*
> Political scientists typically work full time in an office. They sometimes work additional hours to finish reports and meet deadlines.
> 
> * How to Become a Political Scientist*
> Political scientists *need a master’s degree or Ph.D. in political science, public administration, or a related field*.
> 
> 
> *Doctor Faucis' Job Title*
> Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director
> *He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. *The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.
> 
> Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.


I'd call fauci a civil servant.  He's someone who, for some reason, decided to make a career out of serving the public as a career federal employee.

Sometimes civil servants, particularly those who have risen to Senior Executive Service level positions, advise politicians.  But there remains a clear difference between someone like KellyAnne Conway and Dr. Fauci.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Yes, that is the best and only real way to determine a value, such as information. There is no 'one source'.
> True enough; I wasn't talking about the virus specifically but more information in general. My use of Youtube and such is mostly control and automation related. Sources such as a manufacturer are good but often limited. Gleaning 'how to's' and how others have solved complex problems is more my normal search. There are few common sources.
> 
> I cannot help but feel we are saying much the same thing though. I originally suggested going direct to the CDC for reference but that did not seem good enough. So I suggested the common news feeds. That did not seem good enough either.


But you didn't originally suggest going directly to the cdc. What you did was make up some malarkey about having seen the propaganda on the cdc site, and also reported on CNN and CNBC. Once again, you know folks can just go look and it's still there.  Right?  

I get the impression you're used to being the smartest guy in the room.  But there are a lot of folks here at least as smart as you, and you're just not a very good liar.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> If you are not fact checking from various sources and only using the same sources over and over you are doing exactly what the elderly gentleman Bruce7 mentioned was doing. You are getting your information in a vacuum. How is that accurate?


This makes no sense at all. 
"*Fact checking from various sources*."  I've already posted multiple medical sources.  A significant amount compared to what you have posted.  For someone who claims that they look at multiple resources, you have posted very little of them.  The reason they are same sources is because they are the reliable ones.  As me about Teeth and Cavities and you'll get a complete new set of various resources.  

"*You are getting your information in a vacuum.*"  Yeah because you get reliable Medical Sources from Medical  and Health Organizations.  It's reliable because that's what they do.  So yes.  It's a Medical and Health vacuum where only Medical and Health information exists.


----------



## granfire

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't even understand this Fauci is not a political advisor.  Fauci has never made statements about what is the best political approach.  *This is Fauci's career* "Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies."  The only reason we see him in white house press conferences is because as go good leader and basically a good manager of things.  You bring experts in to give their knowledge on things you don't know about.
> 
> 
> There were only 2 things I needed to know.  1 it kills people, and 2 they don't know anything about it.   So for me that just screams.. Do my best not to get it.
> 
> Sort of like how Timex (the watch company) used to use radioactive material in their watches.   The knew what it does, but didn't know much about until after people started dying.
> Mae Keane, One Of The Last 'Radium Girls,' Dies At 107
> 
> Science has a way of learning things the hard way.. So while they explore, I'm going to do my best not to get it.



Yeah Fauci is the anti of political advisor.
This is why there is an attempt to silence him, But hey, he is 80 some years old ( ) and can probably retire in peace.

The 2nd thing about the virus is the scary part.
I mean, once you are dead, your problems are over.
Surviving it can be the hard part, and I know of a couple of people who have been on a ventilator and barely survived (not COVID) but the lasting damages are severe!
Add to that what the virus can do, and we are back to your statement: heck no, I don't want to get it!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> But there remains a clear difference between someone like KellyAnne Conway and Dr. Fauci.


People are using Political Advisor in the wrong way.  Definitions matter lol. 

The new guy  Scott Atlas.  Is a Policy Advisor so he's clower to the "Political Advisor"  He's area of study is in government policy and healthcare. He is known for advising government officials in the area of creating Government Health Policies.  He has no experience or focused study with viruses and pandemics. He worked as a radiologist. More specifically in Neuroradiology
source:  Scott W. Atlas' Profile | Stanford Profiles
Here you can see how he talks about the policy and financial aspects of health issues.  He also talk about technology and you hear him to talk about how "it's expensive"





This is Fauci before Covid.  I thought showing Pre-covid videos of him and Atlas would really show the difference between the two and their areas of specialty.  Right off the back you can tell what they really like to talk about.  You can also get a good feel about what they do based on the questions that people ask them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

granfire said:


> but the lasting damages are severe!


Yep and this would be considered the new information that they are now learning.  Before they thought people were recovering like they normally do with a cold.  Then a few months ago they learned that it has long lasting damage.  Now they are trying to figure out just what type of long term damages people will be at risk for.   If I had to guess about it.  I would say they are keeping a close eye on the survivors of the virus, so they can gather as much information about any common symptoms that many of them may experience.  

I think now they are looking for signs of long lasting neurological damage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> And that is the difference in opinion. I do not consider NPR or Time Magazine accurate sources. Time is down right unscrupulous.
> 
> If you are not fact checking from various sources and only using the same sources over and over you are doing exactly what the elderly gentleman Bruce7 mentioned was doing. You are getting your information in a vacuum. How is that accurate?
> 
> I admit I had to laugh at the jewelry analogy. Some of the worst junk jewelry out there is sold at the 'high end' jewelry stores. But I get your point.


Going to multiple sources is a good approach if you take certain steps. First, you have to look into the sources behind each. If a news story is the same or different on Fox and MSNBC doesn't determine whether it's accurate, nor who is right. Looking at the sources behind the story is the first step in determing those things. If we're looking at a well documented story (meaning there are reputable sources cited - in this case, scientific/medical sources), then we can start to look for truth. If no reputable sources are cited, then there's no way to determine whether that story has any grounding in fact.

And just because sources are cited, that doesn't ensure there's truth - that requires going a step deeper and examining the source. Someone recently told me they'd heard 95% of people put on ventilators died almost immediately, so ventilators were no longer a recommended protocol. I asked for a source, and they said, "go look it up!" So I did, and quickly determined they had not done so. The stories were easy to find, and easy to track back to early reporting out of Wuhan. There were three serious problems with that person's assertion:

None of the reputable sources (even reputable news sources) showed anyone saying ventilators weren't a recommended protocol. Someone had made that up at some point, and the person I was talking to simply parrotted it without analytical thought.
The original statistic was something closer to 85% (I've since forgotten the actual number).
The original statistic only included "resolved" cases - those cases where the subject had either died or been discharged. In other words, it didn't include anyone who was still in the hospital. Since this was very early in the outbreak, many cases that made it to a ventilator were still in the hospital.
So, this turned out to be a bad statistic, taken out of context and mis-quoted, and given a conclusion not in evidence. The person firmly believed I'd find exactly what they told me if I searched. Within 30 seconds, I'd found all of the information I listed above. And I found it by looking for what they'd told me was true, not by looking for opposition to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Fauci is an adviser to politicians. It is that simple. His recommendations are being used at the highest levels. What else would you call him?


By that definitiion, extrapolating from your prior statement, literally everyone who has ever given advice to a politician should simply be ignored? That seems arbitrary. Dismiss opinions for reason, not simply because you can fit someone into a definition. I don't dismiss liberals' opinions because they are Democrats, nor conservatives' opinions because they're Republicans. Because doing either of those things would be abdicating any responsibility for analysis.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

granfire said:


> Yeah Fauci is the anti of political advisor.
> This is why there is an attempt to silence him, But hey, he is 80 some years old ( ) and can probably retire in peace.
> 
> The 2nd thing about the virus is the scary part.
> I mean, once you are dead, your problems are over.
> Surviving it can be the hard part, and I know of a couple of people who have been on a ventilator and barely survived (not COVID) but the lasting damages are severe!
> Add to that what the virus can do, and we are back to your statement: heck no, I don't want to get it!


And, unfortunately, there is evidence even moderate cases (not requiring hospitalization) have long-term effects.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> By that definitiion, extrapolating from your prior statement, literally everyone who has ever given advice to a politician should simply be ignored? That seems arbitrary. Dismiss opinions for reason, not simply because you can fit someone into a definition. I don't dismiss liberals' opinions because they are Democrats, nor conservatives' opinions because they're Republicans. Because doing either of those things would be abdicating any responsibility for analysis.


Fully agree with the latter part of the post. As unsavory as it can be sometimes I research information from many sources and centers of opinion. As I have already said, I don't see how a person can truly have an unbiased opinion otherwise. 

I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that his information is being used at the highest levels of politics.


----------



## Steve

Here's the thing.  Most folks who work in government are apolitical.  They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same).  It's just inherently apolitical.  Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI,  CDC, etc.  We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.  

They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding.  And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this.  It's very possible that  @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same.  The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.  

And then it becomes an after the fact proof.  Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan.  Step 2:  Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively.  Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right."  It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.

So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized.  But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran.  And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior.  In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston.  I believe him.  We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else.  I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are.  Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Fully agree with the latter part of the post. As unsavory as it can be sometimes I research information from many sources and centers of opinion. As I have already said, I don't see how a person can truly have an unbiased opinion otherwise.
> 
> I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that his information is being used at the highest levels of politics.


This is such obvious bologna.  You don't research anything, man.  Come on.  Who are you trying to kid?  At the very most, you read or heard the talking point, then went to the CDC website looking for the very specific thing that you wanted to see, and called it a day.  No one is fooled here.  Just stop.


----------



## granfire

dvcochran said:


> I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that *his information is being used* at the highest levels of politics.



Well, if you have a global pandemic, you have to use the regulatory powers of the government.
Other than that, he is not giving advice on politics. He is giving advice on infectious diseases. 


As far as the 'use' of his information......one could only wish. 
Seeing that the utterings of you-know-who created a situation where the good doctor has to fear for his and his family's safety.


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> Here's the thing.  Most folks who work in government are apolitical.  They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same).  It's just inherently apolitical.  Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI,  CDC, etc.  We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.
> 
> They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding.  And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this.  It's very possible that  @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same.  The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.
> 
> And then it becomes an after the fact proof.  Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan.  Step 2:  Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively.  Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right."  It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.
> 
> So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized.  But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran.  And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior.  In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston.  I believe him.  We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else.  I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are.  Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.



well, we cultivated a disinterest in caring for our fellow humans. you know, our neighbors. 
In Asian countries, it is common practice to wear a mask when you feel you are coming down with something. 
In the US people g to parties, knowing they carry the virus, but because they don't feel sick, why should they stay home!


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> But you didn't originally suggest going directly to the cdc. What you did was make up some malarkey about having seen the propaganda on the cdc site, and also reported on CNN and CNBC. Once again, you know folks can just go look and it's still there.  Right?
> 
> I get the impression you're used to being the smartest guy in the room.  But there are a lot of folks here at least as smart as you, and you're just not a very good liar.


Haha!!! I work with a bunch of nerdy engineers. I am Never the smartest guy in the room. I have zero problem understanding that every person is smarter than me at something. You have to learn their strengths and utilize them if needed. I haven't found your strength yet but have no doubt it is there.
I am used to being around people with enough sense and gumption that if something is mentioned, such as the CDC which I did mention, they have the initiative to check for themselves if they feel so lead. How is that so hard?   

Looks like post #97 was the second time I asked if anyone has checked the CDC directly.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> Going to multiple sources is a good approach if you take certain steps. First, you have to look into the sources behind each. If a news story is the same or different on Fox and MSNBC doesn't determine whether it's accurate, nor who is right. Looking at the sources behind the story is the first step in determing those things. If we're looking at a well documented story (meaning there are reputable sources cited - in this case, scientific/medical sources), then we can start to look for truth. If no reputable sources are cited, then there's no way to determine whether that story has any grounding in fact.
> 
> And just because sources are cited, that doesn't ensure there's truth - that requires going a step deeper and examining the source. Someone recently told me they'd heard 95% of people put on ventilators died almost immediately, so ventilators were no longer a recommended protocol. I asked for a source, and they said, "go look it up!" So I did, and quickly determined they had not done so. The stories were easy to find, and easy to track back to early reporting out of Wuhan. There were three serious problems with that person's assertion:
> 
> None of the reputable sources (even reputable news sources) showed anyone saying ventilators weren't a recommended protocol. Someone had made that up at some point, and the person I was talking to simply parrotted it without analytical thought.
> The original statistic was something closer to 85% (I've since forgotten the actual number).
> The original statistic only included "resolved" cases - those cases where the subject had either died or been discharged. In other words, it didn't include anyone who was still in the hospital. Since this was very early in the outbreak, many cases that made it to a ventilator were still in the hospital.
> So, this turned out to be a bad statistic, taken out of context and mis-quoted, and given a conclusion not in evidence. The person firmly believed I'd find exactly what they told me if I searched. Within 30 seconds, I'd found all of the information I listed above. And I found it by looking for what they'd told me was true, not by looking for opposition to it.



Nail on the head. This is exactly what I have been saying. I hope your way of saying it is more digestible for folks. There comes a point in data mining where the source alone is not good enough for proof. You have to research the background information.
I understood from jump that my comments of "go find it for yourself" would get blowback. And for clarification I did not make the first 'spoon fed' comment which you disliked. I reacted to it in an effort to get people to look for and understand information from different sources. Simple as that. But there is a hole in that tact. There is still a reality where a person could spend days searching and still assimilate the information to confirm an opinion they had already made up in their mind. 
I feel there is a Lot of that going on with some folks.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Here's the thing.  Most folks who work in government are apolitical.  They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same).  It's just inherently apolitical.  Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI,  CDC, etc.  We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.
> 
> They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding.  And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this.  It's very possible that  @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same.  The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.
> 
> And then it becomes an after the fact proof.  Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan.  Step 2:  Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively.  Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right."  It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.
> 
> So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized.  But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran.  And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior.  In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston.  I believe him.  We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else.  I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are.  Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.



Keep trying Steve. You do not even realize you are making my point for me again. 
All I can say is you live in a different world from the rest of us.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> NPR is accurate enough to admit when they make a mistake and then to correct it.  Not only that but they make their mistakes known as well as their corrections.  That in itself shows how they feel about being accurate.
> NPR Corrections : NPR
> 
> NPR's Ethics Handbook (Homepage https://www.npr.org/series/688409791/npr-ethics-handbook.  It's a lot)
> 
> Parts from the handbook about accuracy
> Accuracy


You do not think NPR is a biased 'news' source? Ye


JowGaWolf said:


> *Political Advisor Career*
> Source: Political Advisor Career Information and College Majors
> "*A job as a Political Advisor falls under the broader career category of Political Scientists."
> 
> *Job Description for Political Scientists : * Study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. May study topics, such as public opinion, political decision-making, and ideology. May analyze the structure and operation of governments, as well as various political entities. May conduct public opinion surveys, analyze election results, or analyze public documents.
> 
> *What Political Scientists do:*
> 
> Consult with and advise government officials, civic bodies, research agencies, the media, political parties, and others *concerned with political issues. *
> Evaluate programs and policies, and make related recommendations to institutions and organizations.
> Identify issues for research and analysis.
> Interpret and analyze policies, public issues, legislation, or the operations of governments, businesses, and organizations.
> Maintain current knowledge of government policy decisions.
> Provide media commentary or criticism related to public policy and political issues and events.
> Disseminate research results through academic publications, written reports, or public presentations.
> *Forecast political, economic, and social trends.*
> *Teach political science*.
> *Collect, analyze, and interpret data such as election results and public opinion surveys, reporting on findings, recommendations, and conclusions*.
> *Develop and test theories, using information from interviews, newspapers, periodicals, case law, historical papers, polls, or statistical sources. *
> Write drafts of legislative proposals, and prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.
> 
> *Political Scientists*
> Source: Political Scientists :     Occupational Outlook Handbook: :     U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> *What Political Scientists Do *
> Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems.
> 
> * Work Environment*
> Political scientists typically work full time in an office. They sometimes work additional hours to finish reports and meet deadlines.
> 
> * How to Become a Political Scientist*
> Political scientists *need a master’s degree or Ph.D. in political science, public administration, or a related field*.
> 
> 
> *Doctor Faucis' Job Title*
> Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director
> *He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. *The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.
> 
> Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.





JowGaWolf said:


> Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues.



You Just said it yourself. How is this hard to understand?


----------



## Steve

I actually get weekly CDC news (i.e. from the CDC) in my email, and go to the CDC website a couple times each week.  I think most people go to the site regularly.  I think the idea you have that anyone HASN'T gone to the CDC website is illustrative of the point.

Edit:  Just adding a screen shot of what the weekly email looks like.  Anyone can subscribe on their site.  Just a way to, you know, stay informed.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Keep trying Steve. You do not even realize you are making my point for me again.
> All I can say is you live in a different world from the rest of us.


"Rest of us?"  Dude.  You're here on an island of your own.  How do you not see that?


----------



## jobo

well virus  apathy has swept the uk, the media keeps printing scare stories, but no one seems to care much at all.

people wandering round in masks is very very rare, possibly one in a 1000, may be much less than that.

the requirement to wear them in shops is clearly farcical, as there is no such  in pubs and restraunts , there some conveluted rule that you can only sit with people of the same house hold, whoch is iniverally ignored, as is the contact tracing, requirment to leave you name and number, i looked at the book in one crowded bar, and there were 6 names in it, mickey mouse and donald duck were notable.
the bus requirment is the most conpkieded with at about 50%, vut then there seems also a strobg ethnic,  bias towards wearing them, shops, its about 20%, also mostly thoose with non uk backgrounds 

all in all, a farce of the highest order


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> And, unfortunately, there is evidence even moderate cases (not requiring hospitalization) have long-term effects.


I think of all the people who thought that they would just get it and recover because they are young.  Now they may be in a situation where long term damage may have been done.   What happens with that damage if they get COVID a second time?  Does it get worse or will the person get something new?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well virus  apathy has swept the uk, the media keeps printing scare stories, but no one seems to care much at all.
> 
> people wandering round in masks is very very rare, possibly one in a 1000, may be much less than that.
> 
> the requirement to wear them in shops is clearly farcical, as there is no such  in pubs and restraunts , there some conveluted rule that you can only sit with people of the same house hold, whoch is iniverally ignored, as is the contact tracing, requirment to leave you name and number, i looked at the book in one crowded bar, and there were 6 names in it, mickey mouse and donald duck were notable.
> the bus requirment is the most conpkieded with at about 50%, vut then there seems also a strobg ethnic,  bias towards wearing them, shops, its about 20%, also mostly thoose with non uk backgrounds
> 
> all in all, a farce of the highest order


Not surprising that the cumulative deaths per million in the UK is among the highest in the world, and even higher than the USA.  Almost 5k cases per million, and over 600 deaths per million.  Looks like the number of cases is starting to go back up, too.  Things seemed to have calmed down for a while, few deaths each day and cases being reported was flattening out.  Hope we don't see any future spikes resulting from the apathy you mention above. 

https://covid19.who.int/table

For anyone who wants to look at the information, you can find it at the link above.  It hasn't been converted into hyper-partisan political talking points yet, so I expect @dvcochran has little reason to go there.  Though, that said, there have been efforts to politicize the WHO in order to undermine their credibility with people like @dvcochran to groom them so that they can be more easily manipulated.


----------



## Steve

Just, to be clear, I'm not being critical of the UK.  The challenges there seem to be similar.

In the USA, the cumulative deaths per million is a little lower, but it doesn't look like anything is really slowing down yet.  Some current data below:




When I look at that spike in cases and deaths over the last 7 days, that concerns me, along with the fact that we're still losing about 1,000 people per day and will soon go over 200k deaths.  That's not a milestone we want.


----------



## Steve

In a different area, we have something relatively new being floated in the USA: herd immunity.  Now, there is nothing new about the concept of herd immunity.  It manifests in different ways.  But what is new is this idea that we should attempt to eradicate a virus that is known to be very dangerous by simply allowing everyone to get it.  This is what the kooks are suggesting, and we know that in Sweden, where they tried it, it didn't go so well.  A lot of folks died who probably didn't need to die.

So, to be clear, herd immunity isn't the issue.  The issue is how we work toward achieving it.  And the answer is, through a vaccine.  How did we achieve herd immunity from the small pox?  Polio?  The mumps?  Various strains of measles?  Deadly viruses like the small pox, or pernicious ones like Polio, are not the kinds of diseases where you just allow everyone to become infected.  Instead, you develop a vaccine and you vaccinate everyone.  We have herd immunity from the mumps because enough people vaccinate their kids to achieve it.  And we know that when dumb anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate enough of their kids, mumps makes a resurgence.

Just for consideration, if everyone in the country gets Covid19, and the death rate is 1%, we're talking over 2 million lives lost.

So, if a vaccine is the means for achieving herd immunity, and trust in the agency responsible for approving the vaccine has been compromised because the people in charge have politicized their processes, where does that leave us?  We've had folks in this thread already say that they won't be taking the first round of vaccines.  That's really sad.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Not surprising that the cumulative deaths per million in the UK is among the highest in the world, and even higher than the USA.  Almost 5k cases per million, and over 600 deaths per million.  Looks like the number of cases is starting to go back up, too.  Things seemed to have calmed down for a while, few deaths each day and cases being reported was flattening out.  Hope we don't see any future spikes resulting from the apathy you mention above.
> 
> https://covid19.who.int/table
> 
> For anyone who wants to look at the information, you can find it at the link above.  It hasn't been converted into hyper-partisan political talking points yet, so I expect @dvcochran has little reason to go there.  Though, that said, there have been efforts to politicize the WHO in order to undermine their credibility with people like @dvcochran to groom them so that they can be more easily manipulated.


i was reading an artcle, that the death toll, from the shut down exceeds the virus deaths, now of course the finacial reality is coming home, our govenment kindly payed 80% of the population to sit in the garden all summer, then they said back to work, but there was no work to go to, and companies are making milkions of peopke redundant,

the spike in the uk, is largly in area with a very high asian musl8m population, its not polically correct to even mention this, we have to pretend that covid is an equal opertunities virus, im not sure why this is so, it may be genitic or perhaps its because they have large families and are far more socially actiive  than the rest of the uk l population, ??? either way, its not equally spread


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> i was reading an artcoal, that the death toll, from the shut down exceeds the virus deaths, now of course the finacial teality is comeing hom, our govenment kindly payed 80% of the population to sit in the gard3n all summer, then they daid back to work, but there was no work to go to, and companies are making milkions of peopke redundant,
> 
> the spike in the uk, is largly in area with a very hogh asian musl8m population, its not polically correct to even mention this, we have to pretend that covid is an equal opertunities virus, im not sure why this is so, it may be genitic or perhaps its because they have large fanilies and are far more socially actiive than the test of the uk l population


There's a lot of room for discussion here, and I think the fallout from this is going to be significant.  There were a lot of things that were done well, and we should look at those countries that have been able to reopen safely and quickly for best practices.  There were also unintended consequences to shutting down that can and should be addressed.

If you could find that article, I'd be interested in reading it.


----------



## Bruce7

Steve said:


> This is such obvious bologna.  You don't research anything, man.  Come on.  Who are you trying to kid?  At the very most, you read or heard the talking point, then went to the CDC website looking for the very specific thing that you wanted to see, and called it a day.  No one is fooled here.  Just stop.



IMO your post are pushing the limits of being rude.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Nail on the head. This is exactly what I have been saying. I hope your way of saying it is more digestible for folks. There comes a point in data mining where the source alone is not good enough for proof. You have to research the background information.
> I understood from jump that my comments of "go find it for yourself" would get blowback. And for clarification I did not make the first 'spoon fed' comment which you disliked. I reacted to it in an effort to get people to look for and understand information from different sources. Simple as that. But there is a hole in that tact. There is still a reality where a person could spend days searching and still assimilate the information to confirm an opinion they had already made up in their mind.
> I feel there is a Lot of that going on with some folks.


I disliked it because I asked for help finding what you're referring to, and you either ignored it or refused.


----------



## Steve

Bruce7 said:


> IMO your post are pushing the limits of being rude.


That one is pretty direct, but sometimes, some people only understand very direct language.  Nothing I said is untrue.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."  Can't remember who said that, but it certainly fits the bill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Wear a mask during sex and avoid kissing new people, Canada's top doctor advises - CNN





*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In a different area, we have something relatively new being floated in the USA: herd immunity.  Now, there is nothing new about the concept of herd immunity.  It manifests in different ways.  But what is new is this idea that we should attempt to eradicate a virus that is known to be very dangerous by simply allowing everyone to get it.  This is what the kooks are suggesting, and we know that in Sweden, where they tried it, it didn't go so well.  A lot of folks died who probably didn't need to die.
> 
> So, to be clear, herd immunity isn't the issue.  The issue is how we work toward achieving it.  And the answer is, through a vaccine.  How did we achieve herd immunity from the small pox?  Polio?  The mumps?  Various strains of measles?  Deadly viruses like the small pox, or pernicious ones like Polio, are not the kinds of diseases where you just allow everyone to become infected.  Instead, you develop a vaccine and you vaccinate everyone.  We have herd immunity from the mumps because enough people vaccinate their kids to achieve it.  And we know that when dumb anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate enough of their kids, mumps makes a resurgence.
> 
> Just for consideration, if everyone in the country gets Covid19, and the death rate is 1%, we're talking over 2 million lives lost.
> 
> So, if a vaccine is the means for achieving herd immunity, and trust in the agency responsible for approving the vaccine has been compromised because the people in charge have politicized their processes, where does that leave us?  We've had folks in this thread already say that they won't be taking the first round of vaccines.  That's really sad.


The idea had some early traction with a minority in the scientific community - Sweden being a case in point. And they didn't save their economy much pain - they are going through a deep recession, as well. As someone said on the BBC last week, "Death is bad for the economy."


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Wear a mask during sex and avoid kissing new people, Canada's top doctor advises - CNN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


When I read this yesterday, my immediate thought is that the Furries are like, "WOOHOO! We've hit the mainstream!"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> people wandering round in masks is very very rare, possibly one in a 1000, may be much less than that.


My simple question is "Why take the risk?"

In MA, if one can do something to reduce his chance to get hit, he will do it. If to have mask on can help one to reduce the risk to get COVID-19. why doesn't he want to do it?

When I run, I have a mask under my chin. When I see someone, I'll move up my mask. After I have passed that person, I then move my mask below my chin again. Since I only run around my neighborhood, I usually only have to put on my mask 3-4 times during my 3 miles running.

We only live once. Don't play with our life. Hope everybody can live to 100.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The idea had some early traction with a minority in the scientific community - Sweden being a case in point. And they didn't save their economy much pain - they are going through a deep recession, as well. As someone said on the BBC last week, "Death is bad for the economy."


Totally.  Again, the point is that the best way to go about creating herd immunity is through a safe and effective vaccine... and that takes time.  And also, it's not always possible (or necessary) for many reasons to vaccinate everyone.  Look at Ebola.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> When I look at that spike in cases and deaths over the last 7 days, that concerns me, along with the fact that we're still losing about 1,000 people per day and will soon go over 200k deaths. That's not a milestone we want.


I feel the same way. Mainly because I don't expect the fall and winter months to be better.  In terms of illness,  the fall and winter months are the worst.  We are entering those months on an increase and not a decrease.  That's bad enough but in the U.S.we also have this idea of "Herd Immunity,"   +  a rush to get back to normal + the idea of "Do what Sweden is doing" + a mentality that only old people get it bad.

I'm not feeling optimistic about the whole of things to many states trying to go with their own plan instead of a unified approach.  If the USA is a team and each state are like the players on the team.  None of them are following the same game plan.  Teams have to work together and be on the same page.  We definitely don't have that in the USA at the moment.  Sounds depressing, but I rather have the realistic view of things so I can make decision that are appropriate for that reality.  Once I have a plan to fit then things don't feel so bad even though things this fall and winter can be really bad.  The brighter side of things is that most people stay indoors during the fall and winter months depending on where you live. 

I'll see how this weekend turns out.  Maybe that will give me a different view of what I think  of the team.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I feel the same way. Mainly because I don't expect the fall and winter months to be better.  In terms of illness,  the fall and winter months are the worst.  We are entering those months on an increase and not a decrease.  That's bad enough but in the U.S.we also have this idea of "Herd Immunity,"   +  a rush to get back to normal + the idea of "Do what Sweden is doing" + a mentality that only old people get it bad.
> 
> I'm not feeling optimistic about the whole of things to many states trying to go with their own plan instead of a unified approach.  If the USA is a team and each state are like the players on the team.  None of them are following the same game plan.  Teams have to work together and be on the same page.  We definitely don't have that in the USA at the moment.  Sounds depressing, but I rather have the realistic view of things so I can make decision that are appropriate for that reality.  Once I have a plan to fit then things don't feel so bad even though things this fall and winter can be really bad.  The brighter side of things is that most people stay indoors during the fall and winter months depending on where you live.
> 
> I'll see how this weekend turns out.  Maybe that will give me a different view of what I think  of the team.


Based on how the virus spreads (droplets), the winter should be worse, as the lower humidity will allow the droplets to stay airborn longer. Since a vaccine by then is unlikely, our best hope for mitigation (other than distancing and masks) is some level of herd immunity among those who've already been exposed. If we're lucky, the immune response will be durable enough to help out.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> I actually get weekly CDC news (i.e. from the CDC) in my email, and go to the CDC website a couple times each week.  I think most people go to the site regularly.  I think the idea you have that anyone HASN'T gone to the CDC website is illustrative of the point.
> 
> Edit:  Just adding a screen shot of what the weekly email looks like.  Anyone can subscribe on their site.  Just a way to, you know, stay informed.
> 
> View attachment 23104


It occurred to me that someone might question the above, so I thought I'd dig the first weekly briefing I got from the CDC back in early march.   How does someone stay up to date?  Well, there are a lot of ways, but this is a pretty good one for keeping up with the CDC. 

I signed up for the news feed in late February, when things started to get really bad.  Below are screen shots of the entire email from the week of 3/2/20:

   

If anyone's interested, I could post screen shots of all of them between 3/2/20 and week of 8/24/20 (the most recent).  I think I can pull them all out of the deleted folder.


----------



## jobo

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My simple question is "Why take the risk?"
> 
> In MA, if one can do something to reduce his chance to get hit, he will do it. If to have mask on can help one to reduce the risk to get COVID-19. why doesn't he want to do it?
> 
> When I run, I have a mask under my chin. When I see someone, I'll move up my mask. After I have passed that person, I then move my mask below my chin again. Since I only run around my neighborhood, I usually only have to put on my mask 3-4 times during my 3 miles running.
> 
> We only live once. Don't play with our life. Hope everybody can live to 100.


but what level of risk is it? its a genuine question,

ive ignored the whole thing as much as possible, im not at all sure if ive had it or not, i felt a bit rough for a few days , but then sugestuon and paronia does that,

if pwople are being tokd masks reduce the risk, that meanibgless unless you kbow what the risk is to start off with, and how much they reduce it.

as ive said the uk advice/ law is a complete mess, no need for masks in crowded pubs, vut strictly nessercery in nearly empty super markets,  it a joke

personally id sooner risk death than live in fear, of some remote  possibility,

and masks allegedly,  there to protect others and i really dont care if other gets it or not, they can stop in if they dont want to run the risk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Wear a mask during sex and avoid kissing new people, Canada's top doctor advises - CNN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I heard Dr. Atlas make fun of that.  I was wondering what he was talking about. 
I understand what the article was getting at, not sure if the delivery was a clean one lol.   Simply ask yourself.  How would you date in a pandemic environment?  Depending on your position about the benefits of wearing a mask,  you'll probably run into a few scenario's about wearing a mask.   I would hope that a high level of trust and that both are on the same game plan for protecting themselves against Covid, would be establish before thinking about sex.  But then again.  people lie. That's why STD's don't die out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Totally.  Again, the point is that the best way to go about creating herd immunity is through a safe and effective vaccine... and that takes time.  And also, it's not always possible (or necessary) for many reasons to vaccinate everyone.  Look at Ebola.


That's how I feel too.  When they said Herd immunity, I was like.. So we'll have herd immunity like we do against colds and other viruses that don't work that way lol.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> I heard Dr. Atlas make fun of that.  I was wondering what he was talking about.
> I understand what the article was getting at, not sure if the delivery was a clean one lol.   Simply ask yourself.  How would you date in a pandemic environment?  Depending on your position about the benefits of wearing a mask,  you'll probably run into a few scenario's about wearing a mask.   I would hope that a high level of trust and that both are on the same game plan for protecting themselves against Covid, would be establish before thinking about sex.  But then again.  people lie. That's why STD's don't die out.


sex generally doesnt work that way , thats why stds dont die out


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> but what level of risk is it? its a genuine question,
> 
> ive ignored the whole thing as much as possible, im not at all sure if ive had it or not, i felt a bit rough for a few days , but then sugestuon and paronia does that,
> 
> if pwople are being tokd masks reduce the risk, that meanibgless unless you kbow what the risk is to start off with, and how much they reduce it.
> 
> as ive said the uk advice/ law is a complete mess, no need for masks in crowded pubs, vut strictly nessercery in nearly empty super markets,  it a joke
> 
> personally id sooner risk death than live in fear, of some remote  possibility,
> 
> and masks allegedly,  there to protect others and i really dont care if other gets it or not, they can stop in if they dont want to run the risk


Reduce the risk in this case. Just simply means do things that make it difficult to be infected.  When you do things that make it difficult to be infected then it doesn't matter what environment you are in or how many people are in the that environment.  Unless you are a person that works in an environment dealing with Covid patients, then it switches from Risk Reduction to Infection Prevention.


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Wear a mask during sex and avoid kissing new people, Canada's top doctor advises - CNN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *





 

Yeah, but not while she's holding weights.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> Reduce the risk in this case. Just simply means do things that make it difficult to be infected.  When you do things that make it difficult to be infected then it doesn't matter what environment you are in or how many people are in the that environment.  Unless you are a person that works in an environment dealing with Covid patients, then it switches from Risk Reduction to Infection Prevention.


but whats the ****""" risk,
 its clearly not as dangerous an an asteriod strike, why arnt peopke worried avout that


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> but whats the ****""" risk,
> its clearly not as dangerous an an asteriod strike, why arnt peopke worried avout that


 Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain died on July 30, a month after he was diagnosed with COVID-19.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but whats the ****""" risk,
> its clearly not as dangerous an an asteriod strike, why arnt peopke worried avout that


How many people have died from asteroid strikes this year?


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> personally id sooner risk death than live in fear,


For me there's nothing to fear if I have some accurate information about the situation.  Once I have accurate information then I can prepare and plan.  Once I have my plan then I just work the plan and stick to it.

I'm rarely around other people,  I go out once a week or once every 2 weeks.  I wear a mask when I go grocery shopping.  I wore one when I went to the doctor and dentist recently.  I could see they were taking it seriously at their place of business so that made me feel better.  The stuff that I do to be careful isn't done out of fear, it's done with the understanding of how to reduce my risk of being infected.  

I'll put it this way.  I have more concern about things getting out of hand with the states here than about me getting sick.  No matter how bad things get where I live, I'm still sticking to the same plan of action.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain died on July 30, a month after he was diagnosed with COVID-19.


Correct, and there are pictures and video of him doing things that don't decrease the risk of catching COVID-19.  He took that gamble and lost big time.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> How many people have died from asteroid strikes this year?



Damn, I wish you hadn't said that. This year is just SO F'D I wouldn't put any thing past old 2020.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> How many people have died from asteroid strikes this year?


LOL  I hate when people say stuff like that.  "it's clearly not as dangerous as the Sun burning out"   "it's clearly not as dangerous as getting hit with nukes".
It's like probability doesn't exists.

For COVID-19 it should be easy to figure out.  How many times do you catch the flu a year.  How many times do you catch a cold a year? From there you can get a vague idea of what type of risks are involved based on your life style.  For the times I've been sick, I usually catch it from someone who is younger than me ab15 or 20 years.  I rarely get sick from an older person.  Most of the older people that I know stay home when they get sick.  Most of the younger people I know do not.

When was the last time that an Asteroid landed in  my location.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> For me there's nothing to fear if I have some accurate information about the situation.  Once I have accurate information then I can prepare and plan.  Once I have my plan then I just work the plan and stick to it.
> 
> I'm rarely around other people,  I go out once a week or once every 2 weeks.  I wear a mask when I go grocery shopping.  I wore one when I went to the doctor and dentist recently.  I could see they were taking it seriously at their place of business so that made me feel better.  The stuff that I do to be careful isn't done out of fear, it's done with the understanding of how to reduce my risk of being infected.
> 
> I'll put it this way.  I have more concern about things getting out of hand with the states here than about me getting sick.  No matter how bad things get where I live, I'm still sticking to the same plan of action.


thst must have been complcated wearing a mask at the dentist???????

if you dont know what the risk of you gettibg very poorly from the virus is, how do you know that the risk of gettibg very poorly has been reduced, ? 
it like wearibg garlic to protect you from vampires,  not being biten by a vampire doesnt mean its worked


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> Damn, I wish you hadn't said that. This year is just SO F'D I wouldn't put any thing past old 2020.


ha ha ha.  In for the ride.  I just chalk it up to, things that I've seen in my life time.   We almost had 2 hurricanes hit at the same time in the same location.  That wasn't so bad.  California still has fires.  They stay lit.  I'm at the point where I just assume there's a forest fire every month.  They just stay lit.

I never thought I would be in a global pandemic.  I have my safety helmet on and I'm just sitting back waiting to see just how crazy it's going to get.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> it like wearibg garlic to protect you from vampires,  not being biten by a vampire doesnt mean its worked


When someone knocks on your front door at night, will you ask that person who the current president is? If the answer is Harry S. Truman, that person outside of your front door must be a zombie.

Common sense can protect you in all areas and that include wearing a face mask.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> LOL  I hate when people say stuff like that.  "it's clearly not as dangerous as the Sun burning out"   "it's clearly not as dangerous as getting hit with nukes".
> It's like probability doesn't exists.
> 
> For COVID-19 it should be easy to figure out.  How many times do you catch the flu a year.  How many times do you catch a cold a year? From there you can get a vague idea of what type of risks are involved based on your life style.  For the times I've been sick, I usually catch it from someone who is younger than me ab15 or 20 years.  I rarely get sick from an older person.  Most of the older people that I know stay home when they get sick.  Most of the younger people I know do not.
> 
> When was the last time that an Asteroid landed in  my location.


that the problem its doesnt have to land at your location to wipe out the majority of life on earth, nor does it need to be anywhere  near at big ad the one that did for the dinos, which was about a kilometer in diameter, space just abounds with 100 m rocks,  a stike is inevatable, it could lierially be tommorow  or a couple of millon years away,  in which the north american super volcano will probebly kill is all first, 5hats already over dueor a coronal  mass ej3ction will wipe out all the computers and we will all strave, that due any day now


----------



## jobo

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone knocks on your front door at night, will you ask that person who the current president is? If the answer is Harry S. Truman, that person outside of your front door must be a zombie.
> 
> Common sense can protect you in all areas and that include wearing a face mask.


but comnon sense is protecting me from paranoia


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> thst must have been complcated wearing a mask at the dentist


Nope.  Everyone had one on, unless the patient had their mouth open.  I wasn't even allowed in the building until it was my turn to sit in the chair.  They brought any necessary paperwork to my car and came back out to get me.

When I went to the doctor they didn't allow me to enter the room until I answered some questions about how I was feeling.  Both checked my temperature,  The doctor's office made me use hand sanitizer.  Masks were required in both places.  



jobo said:


> if you dont know what the risk of you gettibg very poorly from the virus is, how do you know that the risk of gettibg very poorly has been reduced,


 Because we know how people get infected with the virus.  If we follow that then it becomes more difficult for the virus to reach it's destination.  If the masks shortens the distance of the spread, then it becomes more difficult for the virus to infect.  If you wash your hands and or use disinfectant often then you make your hands a more difficult environment for the virus to survive in.  If you don't go anywhere then you reduce the risk by cutting down the number of people that you are exposed to.

So regardless of the environment.  You have made it more difficult for the virus to take old.  Not knowing the risk is also a risk. Sort of like randomly having sex with people not knowing what they may or may not have.  You don't know what the risk is, but you can do things to help protect yourself in the event that you become exposed.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope.  Everyone had one on, unless the patient had their mouth open.  I wasn't even allowed in the building until it was my turn to sit in the chair.  They brought any necessary paperwork to my car and came back out to get me.
> 
> When I went to the doctor they didn't allow me to enter the room until I answered some questions about how I was feeling.  Both checked my temperature,  The doctor's office made me use hand sanitizer.  Masks were required in both places.
> 
> Because we know how people get infected with the virus.  If we follow that then it becomes more difficult for the virus to reach it's destination.  If the masks shortens the distance of the spread, then it becomes more difficult for the virus to infect.  If you wash your hands and or use disinfectant often then you make your hands a more difficult environment for the virus to survive in.  If you don't go anywhere then you reduce the risk by cutting down the number of people that you are exposed to.
> 
> So regardless of the environment.  You have made it more difficult for the virus to take old.  Not knowing the risk is also a risk. Sort of like randomly having sex with people not knowing what they may or may not have.  You don't know what the risk is, but you can do things to help protect yourself in the event that you become exposed.


so what % of the world population has died,  a million out of 7 billion, there oretty good odds to me


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> as stike is inevatable, it could lierially be tommorow or a couple of millon years away


lol  a million years away has no impact on today or tomorrow or the next 999,999 years in which millions of people would have already died from a bunch of other things. There's no guarantee that human life would even be on the planet by then, which would render your dangerous asteroid theory totally harmless to human life.

There is also no asteroid that's going to wipe out life tomorrow or anytime this weekend.  But we are guaranteed that people will be infected with COVID -19 and we are guranteed that some people will die from it.  The best thing about that is.  I don't have to wait a million years to prove you wrong on that front.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> but comnon sense is protecting me from paranoia


Naw I'm pretty sure you got paranoia.  Sitting around being concerned about an Asteroid hitting the earth or a Mega Volcano exploding.  You worry about that stuff and not COVID?  Interesting.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> lol  a million years away has no impact on today or tomorrow or the next 999,999 years in which millions of people would have already died from a bunch of other things. There's no guarantee that human life would even be on the planet by then, which would render your dangerous asteroid theory totally harmless to human life.
> 
> There is also no asteroid that's going to wipe out life tomorrow or anytime this weekend.  But we are guaranteed that people will be infected with COVID -19 and we are guranteed that some people will die from it.  The best thing about that is.  I don't have to wait a million years to prove you wrong on that front.


well there quite likely is, we cant detect them and if we do we cant stop them, something a biut a 100 meters wide will do for us,  lets say its one change in a milkion it will hapen this year,  thats still more likely than me dieing of the virus


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> so what % of the world population has died, a million out of 7 billion, there oretty good odds to me


Died of what?


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> well there quite likely is, we cant detect them and if we do we cant stop them, something a biut a 100 meters wide will do for us,  lets say its one change in a milkion it will hapen this year,  thats still more likely than me dieing of the virus


lets do this.  If an Astroid hits the earth and destroys life like you stated before the end of the week then I'll never speak again in this Forum.  I'll first admit my shame and never post again in this forum

If an Astroid doesn't hit the earth and destroy life like you have stated, then you would leave the forum and will never post here again.  

If a person doesn't die from COVID-19 before the end of this week then I will also leave this forum.  That's a bonus just for you.  I'm feeling kind.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> lets do this.  If an Astroid hits the earth and destroys life like you stated before the end of the week then I'll never speak again in this Forum.  I'll first admit my shame and never post again in this forum
> 
> If an Astroid doesn't hit the earth and destroy life like you have stated, then you would leave the forum and will never post here again.
> 
> If a person doesn't die from COVID-19 before the end of this week then I will also leave this forum.  That's a bonus just for you.  I'm feeling kind.


your mixing your risk up , people die in enfotunete vacum clearner acidents, that unlijely to be me as i dont own one , 

someone will inevatably die of covid, its just vanishgly 7nlikely that will be me either, im just the wrong demographic to have anything more than a neglagable risk, yes less of a risk than an astoriod strike, which it seems your not worried about at all


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> im just the wrong demographic to have anything more than a neglagable risk,


I don't even know what this means, without  you defining the demographic that you think you fit in.



jobo said:


> yes less of a risk than an astoriod strike, which it seems your not worried about at all


Why would I worry about an asteroid hitting the earth?  Why would I worry about a super volcano in the US erupting.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> so what % of the world population has died,  a million out of 7 billion, there oretty good odds to me


No, it's just about 850,000 out of 25.8 million.  Not everyone's had it yet.

This is where that herd immunity argument starts to get scary.  Let's say all 7.5 billion people on Earth gets it, and the actual death toll after everyone gets it is a very generous .25%.  For the sake of argument, let's just assume that if you get it, you won't get it again.  We're talking an *additional *18 million people will die, not including the 800,000 or so people who have died so far.  That's if we're talking a lower than current death rate. 

Now, the USA accounts for about 25% of the cases worldwide.  We also have, just in raw numbers, about 22% of the deaths.  So, if we don't spread them out equally based strictly on population, but instead put those deaths where they are actually occurring using the raw data...  it looks really bad in the USA and the UK (though worse in other countries).  That's like an additional 3.6 million people just in the USA. 

Quick math here... the UK accounts for about 5% of the worldwide deaths... if that rate stays consistent, you'd see an additional 900,000 deaths.

Hopefully I add the right number of zeroes...  I am a product of Seattle public schools, so if my math isn't right let me know.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't even know what this means, without  you defining the demographic that you think you fit in.
> 
> 
> Why would I worry about an asteroid hitting the earth?  Why would I worry about a super volcano in the US erupting.


because they will both happen, and one or both could happen very soon, and you and your loved ones will all die agonisibg deaths, but your worried about sonethibg you probebly wobnt catch and if you do you probebly wont notice you have

im not in any of the high risk of death demographics


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> No, it's just about 850,000 out of 25.8 million.  Not everyone's had it yet.
> 
> This is where that herd immunity argument starts to get scary.  Let's say all 7.5 billion people on Earth gets it, and the actual death toll after everyone gets it is a very generous .25%.  For the sake of argument, let's just assume that if you get it, you won't get it again.  We're talking an *additional *18 million people will die, not including the 800,000 or so people who have died so far.  That's if we're talking a lower than current death rate.
> 
> Now, the USA accounts for about 25% of the cases worldwide.  We also have, just in raw numbers, about 22% of the deaths.  So, if we don't spread them out equally based strictly on population, but instead put those deaths where they are actually occurring using the raw data...  it looks really bad in the USA and the UK (though worse in other countries).  That's like an additional 3.6 million people just in the USA.
> 
> Quick math here... the UK accounts for about 5% of the worldwide deaths... if that rate stays consistent, you'd see an additional 900,000 deaths.
> 
> Hopefully I add the right number of zeroes...  I am a product of Seattle public schools, so if my math isn't right let me know.


but there are mostly only high risk demographic dieing and when they run out of old and sick people the death rate will drop dramatically,

how many people become infected is completly coincidetal to the debate

the whole stratgy of the lock down was to slow the infection rate down so as not to over welm the hospitals,  there was never any intent to stop infection as that is largy impossible, the same number will die, just over a longer time period


----------



## granfire

and you all wondered about Jobo....
Aren't you glad to have him back!


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> because they will both happen, and one or both could happen very soon, and you and your loved ones will all die agonisibg deaths, but your worried about sonethibg you probebly wobnt catch and if you do you probebly wont notice you have
> 
> im not in any of the high risk of death demographics


So the likely hood of me dying in a Super Volcano explosion and Astroid crashing into the earth is greater than me catching COVID-19.

Yeah starting to sound like the that Oily dragon


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> So the likely hood of me dying in a Super Volcano explosion and Astroid crashing into the earth is greater than me catching COVID-19.
> 
> Yeah starting to sound like the that Oily dragon


il try again, the chances of ME dieing from a super volcano,  is greater than me dieing of covid,, thats dieing not catching it

i kbow little about you to make the same prediction, but you look healthy ebough so possibly true for you as well


----------



## JowGaWolf

granfire said:


> and you all wondered about Jobo....
> Aren't you glad to have him back!


He was always here.  His other handle is Oily Dragon lol.  Never seen posting at the same time.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but there are mostly only high risk demographic dieing and when they run out of old and sick people the death rate will drop dramatically,
> 
> how many people become infected is completly coincidetal to the debate
> 
> the whole stratgy of the lock down was to slow the infection rate down so as not to over welm the hospitals,  there was never any intent to stop infection as that is largy impossible, the same number will die, just over a longer time period


Soylent Green is people.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Soylent Green is people.


ive no idea what that means ??


----------



## _Simon_

jobo said:


> il try again, the chances of ME dieing from a super volcano,  is greater than me dieing of covid,, thats dieing not catching it
> 
> i kbow little about you to make the same prediction, but you look healthy ebough so possibly true for you as well


So how have you come to the informed conclusion that you're immune from dying of Covid?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> but what level of risk is it? its a genuine question,
> 
> ive ignored the whole thing as much as possible, im not at all sure if ive had it or not, i felt a bit rough for a few days , but then sugestuon and paronia does that,
> 
> if pwople are being tokd masks reduce the risk, that meanibgless unless you kbow what the risk is to start off with, and how much they reduce it.
> 
> as ive said the uk advice/ law is a complete mess, no need for masks in crowded pubs, vut strictly nessercery in nearly empty super markets,  it a joke
> 
> personally id sooner risk death than live in fear, of some remote  possibility,
> 
> and masks allegedly,  there to protect others and i really dont care if other gets it or not, they can stop in if they dont want to run the risk


If you don't understand the risk, it's because you're ignoring the medical and scientific professionals who are sharing it. The risk ranges from mild discomfort to death, with realistic chances of both for people of all ages and backgrounds. You wearing a mask protects others. Not doing so is just irresponsible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> but whats the ****""" risk,
> its clearly not as dangerous an an asteriod strike, why arnt peopke worried avout that


Rating risk has to involve at least two factors: the potential bad outcome, and the likelihood of occurence. There's little likelihood an asteroid will strike in our lifetime. People are dying by the thousands from COVID today.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> For me there's nothing to fear if I have some accurate information about the situation.  Once I have accurate information then I can prepare and plan.  Once I have my plan then I just work the plan and stick to it.
> 
> I'm rarely around other people,  I go out once a week or once every 2 weeks.  I wear a mask when I go grocery shopping.  I wore one when I went to the doctor and dentist recently.  I could see they were taking it seriously at their place of business so that made me feel better.  The stuff that I do to be careful isn't done out of fear, it's done with the understanding of how to reduce my risk of being infected.
> 
> I'll put it this way.  I have more concern about things getting out of hand with the states here than about me getting sick.  No matter how bad things get where I live, I'm still sticking to the same plan of action.


As someone else did in another thread recently, he's confusing fear with reasonable caution. I'm not afraid of cars, but I do take reasonable measures when driving them, because there's real risk that can be easily mitigated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> thst must have been complcated wearing a mask at the dentist???????
> 
> if you dont know what the risk of you gettibg very poorly from the virus is, how do you know that the risk of gettibg very poorly has been reduced, ?
> it like wearibg garlic to protect you from vampires,  not being biten by a vampire doesnt mean its worked


If you followed the very simple scientific explanations of how masks protect, you'd know you don't need to know the exact numbers around the risk. Masks work. Even bad masks work, though with much lower effectiveness. Really good masks work much better, and those who study these things know (and are telling us) which masks are better for what purposes. It's not a blind mystery. Most of the "conflicting information" people cite is either contextual or comparing early conclusions to what we know now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> but comnon sense is protecting me from paranoia


No, it really isn't.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> If you don't understand the risk, it's because you're ignoring the medical and scientific professionals who are sharing it. The risk ranges from mild discomfort to death, with realistic chances of both for people of all ages and backgrounds. You wearing a mask protects others. Not doing so is just irresponsible.


yout desribibg symtoms not the risk, of developing the symptoms


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> ive no idea what that means ??


It was a really, really bad fiction movie made around 1970.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> so what % of the world population has died,  a million out of 7 billion, there oretty good odds to me


Yeah, it must be nice being that smugly ignorant.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> If you followed the very simple scientific explanations of how masks protect, you'd know you don't need to know the exact numbers around the risk. Masks work. Even bad masks work, though with much lower effectiveness. Really good masks work much better, and those who study these things know (and are telling us) which masks are better for what purposes. It's not a blind mystery. Most of the "conflicting information" people cite is either contextual or comparing early conclusions to what we know now.


id rather have the science than be fobbed of with simpkistic one size fits all " expkinations" and masks dont protect me, they alledgly protect others, people i dont know and probebly wouldnt like if i did, who have the iption to stay home if they dont like it

as i said mask wearibg in the uk is patchy at best, beibg totally ignored by circa 90% of people,  so we are all in it together


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> yout desribibg symtoms not the risk, of developing the symptoms


So, without a specific, single number, you just assume it's near 0. Great decision-making.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, it must be nice being that smugly ignorant.


have you actually a point to make or are you just throwibg insults about, again


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, without a specific, single number, you just assume it's near 0. Great decision-making.


il settle for an aproximate range of risk, have you got one ?


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> It was a really, really bad fiction movie made around 1970.


cheers, id have gone for the andromeda  strain myself,  i watch that again recently and its still quite good


----------



## jobo

i spend a good bit of my day sat oytside cofee bars and pubs, listenibg to the conversations of other patrons,  and my vox pop has revealed that everybody thinks its a conspiracy of some kind , they cant agree who is conspiring  to what end, but its safe to say that any faith they once had in the govenment or its science advisors has long long gone.

for the record i dont think its a conspiracy,  just ineptitude


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> It was a really, really bad fiction movie made around 1970.


I think what you meant to say is "cult classic."

But I applaud you for having the good sense to stop digging.


----------



## EdwardA

The science of testing.
In order to detect very small molicules you have to do what is called "amplicifation cycles".  You have to do enough cycles to detect the virus, but if you do too many cycles you detect positives that are not active virus and even other things only slightly related and contamination from the lab.  The front-line scientists recommended 20-30 cycles.  The CDC recommended and approved 40 cycles.  If anyone actually reads these details, what do suppose that means?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> i spend a good bit of my day sat oytside cofee bars and pubs, listenibg to the conversations of other patrons,  and my vox pop has revealed that everybody thinks its a conspiracy of some kind , they cant agree who is conspiring  to what end, but its safe to say that any faith they once had in the govenment or its science advisors has long long gone.
> 
> for the record i dont think its a conspiracy,  just ineptitude



And those people who think it is a conspiracy are experts in anything related to the corona virus?

Or are they Karen's who have no way of knowing if it is a conspiracy or not? But know better than say in our case the CSIRO. Who are one of our leading authorities in the corona virus and have never been tainted with accusations of corruption or ineptitude.

And by the way. You can now have your mask tasted and accredited.

CSIRO launches Australia's first accredited face mask testing facility - CSIRO

Can Karen from the pub do that?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> And those people who think it is a conspiracy are experts in anything related to the corona virus?
> 
> Or are they Karen's who have no way of knowing if it is a conspiracy or not? But know better than say in our case the CSIRO. Who are one of our leading authorities in the corona virus and have never been tainted with accusations of corruption or ineptitude.
> 
> And by the way. You can now have your mask tasted and accredited.
> 
> CSIRO launches Australia's first accredited face mask testing facility - CSIRO
> 
> Can Karen from the pub do that?


they are a cross section of the public, that they are so suspicous of the govenment is a failure by the govenment, who have to goven by consent and they have very little as things stand

it doesnt matter if you are morally and factually correct, if no one belives you


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> CSIRO launches Australia's first accredited face mask testing facility - CSIRO


I wish the U.S. had something like that and if they do, I wish I knew the link lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> it doesnt matter if you are morally and factually correct, if no one belives you


It always matters if you are factually correct.  The goal isn't to get people to believe you.  The goal is to have correct information

I'm pretty sure there was a time where the majority of people didn't believe that men could fly or that the world was round and revolved around the sun.

Being morally correct also matters.  There is a long line of examples, showing how things were viewed from a morally correct lens.  Especially if it was going against someone or something that was seen as morally incorrect.  Like they say  "Facts Matter"


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> It always matters if you are factually correct.  The goal isn't to get people to believe you.  The goal is to have correct information
> 
> I'm pretty sure there was a time where the majority of people didn't believe that men could fly or that the world was round and revolved around the sun.
> 
> Being morally correct also matters.  There is a long line of examples, showing how things were viewed from a morally correct lens.  Especially if it was going against someone or something that was seen as morally incorrect.  Like they say  "Facts Matter"


well no, not being belived coz peopke think you are lieing and beng wrong are much the same thing at least as far as govenments are concerned, it results in a break down of social order and the deconstruction of the social contract

or to put it more simply for you govenments cant goven in a democracy if a significant number of peopke belive the govenment is delibratly trying to kill them, improveresh them or indeed just doest care if either of the above happen

the truth us what most peopke belive it to be, until you can prove them wrong and youve proved them wrong when they belive you, chicken and egg


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> they are a cross section of the public, that they are so suspicous of the govenment is a failure by the govenment, who have to goven by consent and they have very little as things stand
> 
> it doesnt matter if you are morally and factually correct, if no one belives you


This is a good point.  Why do you think folks don't trust their government agencies?  I mean, like the CDC or the FDA here in America.  Do you think they've done things to erode public trust?  If so, what?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> It always matters if you are factually correct.  The goal isn't to get people to believe you.  The goal is to have correct information
> 
> I'm pretty sure there was a time where the majority of people didn't believe that men could fly or that the world was round and revolved around the sun.
> 
> Being morally correct also matters.  There is a long line of examples, showing how things were viewed from a morally correct lens.  Especially if it was going against someone or something that was seen as morally incorrect.  Like they say  "Facts Matter"


I would say it's both: be factually correct and credible AND people should believe you.  And in a normal world, one leads to the other.  If you are factually correct and credible, then you will be believed.  And generally, when federal agencies are not politicized, they are credible. 

And then propaganda and political influence become involved.  Look.  Anyone can be misled. The key is to stay as informed as possible, and check the sources.  We are all being bombarded now with information and misinformation.  So, try and stay informed and curious.  And if you are shown to be wrong, just admit it.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> This is a good point.  Why do you think folks don't trust their government agencies?  I mean, like the CDC or the FDA here in America.  Do you think they've done things to erode public trust?  If so, what?


im not really up to speed on american agencies, from the little i know, there a reasonable suspicion that they are there to serve the big companies rather than the well being of the population.

in 5he uk the govenment has flip floped on everything, some times changing the guidance three or 4 times in 24 hours, its hard to come to any conclusion other than if its unpopular( pn twitter) they change it, the country appears to be beibg ran by a few thousand loonies on twitter. even consevative mps are calling bull on it. masks......yes , no not all the time,,  yes sometimes, no not at all, yes all the time apart from pubs, tends to erode public confidence very quickly

on the larger issue its hard to hold people in a state of fear, they adjust mentally to it, then they cease to actually care at all.

pkus passibg laws to protect people from themsrlves is always dangerous and seldom works, drugs being a clasoc example


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> im not really up to speed on american agencies, from the little i know, there a reasonable suspicion that they are there to serve the big companies rather than the well being of the population.


In the U.S. the government has a history of not having morally correct actions.  It also has a history of Lie.

They usually get busted with the Lies after the Facts come out.  That's why I say being morally correct and facts matter.   Usually distrust is due to the fact that someone discovered that things were as they said they were.  That's when facts come out.  If you are morally correct and truthful then it's difficult to show facts that prove otherwise no matter what people say.

Obama's birther conspiracy is a good example of that.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> No, it's just about 850,000 out of 25.8 million.  Not everyone's had it yet.
> 
> This is where that herd immunity argument starts to get scary.  Let's say all 7.5 billion people on Earth gets it, and the actual death toll after everyone gets it is a very generous .25%.  For the sake of argument, let's just assume that if you get it, you won't get it again.  We're talking an *additional *18 million people will die, not including the 800,000 or so people who have died so far.  That's if we're talking a lower than current death rate.
> 
> Now, the USA accounts for about 25% of the cases worldwide.  We also have, just in raw numbers, about 22% of the deaths.  So, if we don't spread them out equally based strictly on population, but instead put those deaths where they are actually occurring using the raw data...  it looks really bad in the USA and the UK (though worse in other countries).  That's like an additional 3.6 million people just in the USA.
> 
> Quick math here... the UK accounts for about 5% of the worldwide deaths... if that rate stays consistent, you'd see an additional 900,000 deaths.
> 
> Hopefully I add the right number of zeroes...  I am a product of Seattle public schools, so if my math isn't right





jobo said:


> im not really up to speed on american agencies, from the little i know, there a reasonable suspicion that they are there to serve the big companies rather than the well being of the population.
> 
> in 5he uk the govenment has flip floped on everything, some times changing the guidance three or 4 times in 24 hours, its hard to come to any conclusion other than if its unpopular( pn twitter) they change it, the country appears to be beibg ran by a few thousand loonies on twitter. even consevative mps are calling bull on it. masks......yes , no not all the time,,  yes sometimes, no not at all, yes all the time apart from pubs, tends to erode public confidence very quickly
> 
> on the larger issue its hard to hold people in a state of fear, they adjust mentally to it, then they cease to actually care at all.
> 
> pkus passibg laws to protect people from themsrlves is always dangerous and seldom works, drugs being a clasoc example



Here in the US, this is the most bizarre Presidential election year I have ever encountered in my lifetime, and I predict it will go down as the most bizarre ever. Along with the virus, heavy social disruption, and excessive media influence, it is hard to believe much of anything right now. 
Literally everything of pertinence is in flux right now.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> In the U.S. the government has a history of not having morally correct actions.  It also has a history of Lie.
> 
> They usually get busted with the Lies after the Facts come out.  That's why I say being morally correct and facts matter.   Usually distrust is due to the fact that someone discovered that things were as they said they were.  That's when facts come out.  If you are morally correct and truthful then it's difficult to show facts that prove otherwise no matter what people say.
> 
> Obama's birther conspiracy is a good example of that.


prisons are full of people who were morally correct and truthful, it doesnt seem to help if no one believed them 

there are very few facts in the world that are not subject to interpritation, clealy as facts keep beibg updated, its difficult to know which facts are axtually factual as we speak. and thats hard science in political science there is only interpretation  and its polical science that runs the world


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> In the U.S. the government has a history of not having morally correct actions.  It also has a history of Lie.
> 
> They usually get busted with the Lies after the Facts come out.  That's why I say being morally correct and facts matter.   Usually distrust is due to the fact that someone discovered that things were as they said they were.  That's when facts come out.  If you are morally correct and truthful then it's difficult to show facts that prove otherwise no matter what people say.
> 
> Obama's birther conspiracy is a good example of that.



But you have to admit literally all actions or decisions are made based on the information available at that time. Radiation was thought to be good for you at one point. Cocaine cured every illness. At the time, an entire country thought Hitler was a god. 
Based on the information at hand they thought they being morally correct. There is very little historically that was not refined after the discovery. 

BSAT is a frequently used acronym in law and technical troubleshooting. Often it is just a cop out legally speaking and the explanation of failure in application. But if it is all you have to make an informed decision, I do not think that bankrupts you morally.


----------



## granfire

dvcochran said:


> Here in the US, this is the most bizarre Presidential election year I have ever encountered in my lifetime, and I predict it will go down as the most bizarre ever. Along with the virus, heavy social disruption, and excessive media influence, it is hard to believe much of anything right now.
> Literally everything of pertinence is in flux right now.


well, it's the most bizarre presidency....this year is just the crowning pinnacle


----------



## dvcochran

"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it."


MAIMONIDES


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> prisons are full of people who were morally correct and truthful, it doesnt seem to help if no one believed them


This is true.  But the opposite is also true where there are many people who were morally correct and truthful that weren't put in prison.  There are also people who have been put in prison and then released years later because they were morally correct and truthful.

Part of the reason that innocent people are put in jail is because other people were morally incorrect and not truthful.  Other times a person breaks the law.  In that case you can be morally correct and truthful and still get put in Jail.  No matter how you look at it.  It still matters.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> there are very few facts in the world that are not subject to interpritation, clealy as facts keep beibg updated, its difficult to know which facts are axtually factual as we speak.


There are a lot of facts that are not subject to interpretation.  It's a fact that in general if you break the law you will have a legal penalty for doing so.  It's a fact that you woke up today unless you haven't been to sleep since yesterday.  It's a fact that driving while drunk increases your risk of having an accident.  It's a fact that 2+2=4.

It's not difficult to know which facts are actual factual as we speak. That is controlled by the level of knowledge and ignorance you have on a subject.  There are people who dismiss fact out of ignorance, and there are who would rather that you don't know the truth.  But none of that changes what really happened.  2+2=4  even if a person chooses not to believe that.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> There are a lot of facts that are not subject to interpretation.  It's a fact that in general if you break the law you will have a legal penalty for doing so.  It's a fact that you woke up today unless you haven't been to sleep since yesterday.  It's a fact that driving while drunk increases your risk of having an accident.  It's a fact that 2+2=4.
> 
> It's not difficult to know which facts are actual factual as we speak. That is controlled by the level of knowledge and ignorance you have on a subject.  There are people who dismiss fact out of ignorance, and there are who would rather that you don't know the truth.  But none of that changes what really happened.  2+2=4  even if a person chooses not to believe that.


your trilizing this somewhat.
my sleeping habits are not really at issue, but its far from a fact that if your break the law you will face a penalty, ive broken the law two hundred times, give or take a few this week alone,  number of penalties recieved,,, non,

breaking the law requires you to be caught and then them having sufficient evidence to convict.

if they have sufficient evidence you will be convicted if you did it or not, gaxt seldom matter in a court. being foubd to have been wrongly convicted some years layer is scant compensation, 

nb can you prove to me that two and two make 4?


----------



## JowGaWolf

ight


jobo said:


> but its far from a fact that if your break the law you will face a penalty, ive broken the law two hundred times, give or take a few this week alone, number of penalties recieved,,, non,


This is why stated *IN GENERAL*.  because there are exceptions based on what type of law and if you get caught.



jobo said:


> breaking the law requires you to be caught and then them having sufficient evidence to convict.


You don't have to be convicted.  Some laws only require that a fine be paid.



jobo said:


> nb can you prove to me that two and two make 4?


 Solve this math problem correctly 2+2=


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Here in the US, this is the most bizarre Presidential election year I have ever encountered in my lifetime, and I predict it will go down as the most bizarre ever. Along with the virus, heavy social disruption, and excessive media influence, it is hard to believe much of anything right now.
> Literally everything of pertinence is in flux right now.


It's telling that you did not include what is the most bizarre element: an administration that is undermining confidence in the voting process with no basis in fact, encouraging folks to commit voter fraud, actively working to suppress peoples' ability to vote, and actually inviting foreign interference in the election process.  I mean, how could it not be bizarre, even without the pandemic?  The above are documented facts.  They're not opinions, in contrast to statements about "excessive media influence."  Your inability to believe in facts is exactly what makes you easily manipulated.  


dvcochran said:


> "Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it."
> 
> 
> MAIMONIDES


“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> ight
> 
> This is why stated *IN GENERAL*.  because there are exceptions based on what type of law and if you get caught.
> 
> 
> You don't have to be convicted.  Some laws only require that a fine be paid.
> 
> Solve this math problem correctly 2+2=


well its not g2berally, if by generally you mean in the majority of cases  , if thats not what you mean then what exaxtly does generally mean.

you need to be convicted in order to have to pay a fine

and

it seems you cant prove 2 plus 2 equals 4, so thats may not be true either


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> It's telling that you did not include what is the most bizarre element: an administration that is undermining confidence in the voting process with no basis in fact, encouraging folks to commit voter fraud, actively working to suppress peoples' ability to vote, and actually inviting foreign interference in the election process.  I mean, how could it not be bizarre, even without the pandemic?  The above are documented facts.  They're not opinions, in contrast to statements about "excessive media influence."  Your inability to believe in facts is exactly what makes you easily manipulated.
> 
> “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
> ― Aldous Huxley
> 
> “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
> ― Martin Luther King Jr.


i think your in danger of getting another intresting thread shut down


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> well its not g2berally, if by generally you mean in the majority of cases  , if thats not what you mean then what exaxtly does generally mean.
> 
> you need to be convicted in order to have to pay a fine
> 
> and
> 
> it seems you cant prove 2 plus 2 equals 4, so thats may not be true either





jobo said:


> you need to be convicted in order to have to pay a fine


This is not true in the U.S.  I have had speeding tickets in the past, but I don't have a criminal record.  But I broke the law and had to pay a fine.
Definition: *Convicted - having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.*
When my background check comes in, it shows that I've never been convicted of a crime.



jobo said:


> it seems you cant prove 2 plus 2 equals 4, so thats may not be true either


More like it seems that you don't know the answer to 2+2= ?

Being that you haven't solved it.  So if you lack that ability then it calls into question your knowledge of other things.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> This is not true in the U.S.  I have had speeding tickets in the past, but I don't have a criminal record.  But I broke the law and had to pay a fine.
> Definition: *Convicted - having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge.*
> When my background check comes in, it shows that I've never been convicted of a crime.
> 
> 
> More like it seems that you don't know the answer to 2+2= ?
> 
> Being that you haven't solved it.  So if you lack that ability then it calls into question your knowledge of other things.


no you said it was a fact, im askibg you to prove it to me, thats what you can do with facts, if yyou cant its not a fact, you cant put the responsibility on to me to do it for you.

the answer to the question is taatlly dependent on which counting syatem you use , it is not unversally true, so not at all a fact

they told you this about the same time as they were telling you, about the tooth fairy , why do you believe one and not the other ?

peole get told stupid things when they are kids then spend their life beibg wrong


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> no you said it was a fact, im askibg you to prove it to me, thats what you can do with facts, if yyou cant its not a fact, you cant put the responsibility on to me to do it for you.


blah blah blah



jobo said:


> the answer to the question is taatlly dependent on which counting syatem you use , it is not unversally true, so not at all a fact


Correctly solve it



jobo said:


> they told you this about the same time as they were telling you, about the tooth fairy , why do you believe one and not the other ?


Wrong.  2+2 = tooth fairy is incorrect.  If you have 2 pencils and I gave you 2 pencils you wouldn't end up with a total of tooth fairy.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> But you have to admit literally all actions or decisions are made based on the information available at that time. Radiation was thought to be good for you at one point. Cocaine cured every illness. At the time, an entire country thought Hitler was a god.
> Based on the information at hand they thought they being morally correct. There is very little historically that was not refined after the discovery.
> 
> BSAT is a frequently used acronym in law and technical troubleshooting. Often it is just a cop out legally speaking and the explanation of failure in application. But if it is all you have to make an informed decision, I do not think that bankrupts you morally.


radiation is still good for  you now as it was then, in the correct dose, cocain makes you feel better whilst you die and almost certainly had a placibo effect, that cure quite a lot of thibgs and germany didnt think hitler was a god, do you have any facts?


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> 
> Correctly solve it
> 
> 
> Wrong.  2+2 = tooth fairy is incorrect.  If you have 2 pencils and I gave you 2 pencils you wouldn't end up with a total of tooth fairy.


i take it youve given up on rational discusion and just decided to be silly, , no wonder you believe in the tooth fairy, you have the maturity of a 5 year old.

can you prove your fact or not?, its seems not


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> i think your in danger of getting another intresting thread shut down


I think we've pretty much run the course anyway.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> i take it youve given up on rational discusion and just decided to be silly, , no wonder you believe in the tooth fairy, you have the maturity of a 5 year old.
> 
> can you prove your fact or not?, its seems not


Not being silly.  If you solve 2+2=  correctly then you would have your proof.  You asked me to prove it.  I asked you to solve that equation and at each post you fail to do so. That's on you.  I already know the answer.

The same way you jump around this is the same way you jump around facts that other people present.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> Not being silly.  If you solve 2+2=  correctly then you would have your proof.  You asked me to prove it.  I asked you to solve that equation and at each post you fail to do so. That's on you.  I already know the answer.
> 
> The same way you jump around this is the same way you jump around facts that other people present.


 your claim your burden of proof, im not sure why i bother chatting with  you, your dim as a 3 watt bulb, stick to prancing round the garden making you neibours laugh,  your good at that


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> your claim your burden of proof, im not sure why i bother chatting with  you, your dim as a 3 watt bulb, stick to prancing round the garden making you neibours laugh,  your good at that


and yet you still haven't sovled 2+2=  but ask me to prove that it's = to 4


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> and yet you still haven't sovled 2+2=  but ask me to prove that it's = to 4


Seriously, though, if we can't all agree that 2+2=4, what the hell are we doing?  I mean, rarely does someone signal so clearly that they are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion in good faith than to argue about whether 2 + 2 = 4.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Seriously, though, if we can't all agree that 2+2=4, what the hell are we doing?  I mean, rarely does someone signal so clearly that they are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion in good faith than to argue about whether 2 + 2 = 4.


well it doesnt always, im suprised you dont know that,? perhaps youd like to pick up the mantal and prove it does?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Seriously, though, if we can't all agree that 2+2=4, what the hell are we doing?  I mean, rarely does someone signal so clearly that they are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion in good faith than to argue about whether 2 + 2 = 4.


That's the problem that exists in society.  Someone states a fact, then you ask them to check it out.  Instead of doing that, they dance around it.  

Then they try to turn it back around on you.  An example of that is. his statement to you.  "well it doesnt always*, im suprised you dont know that,?* *perhaps youd like to pick up the mantal and prove it does*?"  None of that involves him solving 2+2=


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> That's the problem that exists in society.  Someone states a fact, then you ask them to check it out.  Instead of doing that, they dance around it.
> 
> Then they try to turn it back around on you.  An example of that is. his statement to you.  "well it doesnt always*, im suprised you dont know that,?* *perhaps youd like to pick up the mantal and prove it does*?"  None of that involves him solving 2+2=


but its not a fact that 2 plus two equals 4.

ive told you that several times, but your that dim its not sinking in, if your counting in binary the answer is 0100, if your counting in base three, the answer is 11


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but its not a fact that 2 plus two equals 4.
> 
> ive told you that several times, but your that dim its not sinking in, if your counting in binary the answer is 0100, if your counting in base three, the answer is 11


Hey man.  Keep those personal attacks up and you're going to get this interesting thread locked.


----------



## EdwardA

Sometimes it's 8/4 + 8/4 =4, but what I see a lot of, one guy will see 5 facts that agree with his position and say here are the facts, I'm right.  The other guy on the opposite side sees 5 facts that supports his side and says, no I'm right.  Trouble is, neither dug deep enough to find the 20 facts that make up the issue.  It takes more effort and honest neutrality than either applied.

Only those willing to set aside their own opinions can find the truth.   ...and a lot of work.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Hey man.  Keep those personal attacks up and you're going to get this interesting thread locked.


yea but he is thick as pig****, sometimes you have to bite the bullet


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they are a cross section of the public, that they are so suspicous of the govenment is a failure by the govenment, who have to goven by consent and they have very little as things stand
> 
> it doesnt matter if you are morally and factually correct, if no one belives you




Not really. Again you are suggesting that there is an onus on experts is to convince idiots.

Unfortunately the idiots don't make that possible.

Sorry can you please explain a concept that took you 4 years of specialized training to understand in about ten seconds?

I just have a really short attention span.



So for example.

"To come up with a proof of such a seemingly simple fact as 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, we need a set of axioms to start with, and we need precise definitions of all the terms we are using. Depending on what set of axioms you start with, proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, and that no other natural number can equal 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 may be either very simple or surprisingly difficult. For example in Russell and Whitehead's Principia, it famously took over 300 pages of work before they could prove that 1+1=2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1+1=21+1=2. They started with a very sparse set of axioms though.

The most common set of axioms for the natural numbers are the Peano Axioms.

They are


0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 is a natural number.
For every natural number x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, x=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=xx=x.
For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx and y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y, then y=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=xy=x.
For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, and z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">zz, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y and y=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=zy=z, then x=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=zx=z.
For all a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa and b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb, if a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa is a natural number, and a=b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a=ba=b, then b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb is a natural number.
For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)S(n) is a natural number.
For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)=0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)=0S(n)=0 is false.
For all natural numbers m" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">mm and n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, if S(m)=S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(m)=S(n)S(m)=S(n) then m=n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">m=nm=n.
If K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK is a set such that 0&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">0∈K0∈K, and for every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, n&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">n∈Kn∈K implies that S(n)&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)∈KS(n)∈K, then K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK contains all natural numbers.
Here S" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">SS is the successor function, it takes each natural number to its successor. This might seem like a complicated mess compared to the simplicity of natural numbers, but we need to be precise. We need to carefully construct the axioms so that no contradiction can be derived from them, and so they encapsulate what we understand to be the natural numbers. We want to be able to prove interesting statements about the natural numbers from them. Note that the axioms contain undefined terms. The axioms don't need to state what the terms mean, only what they do.

The following definitions are commonly used within this axiomatization. They are the definitions from Peano's original paper (An English translation is available in the book From Frege to Gödel), modified to start at 0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 instead of 1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11.

1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11 is defined as S(0)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(0)S(0), 2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">22 is defined as S(1)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(1)S(1), 3" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">33 is defined as S(2)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(2)S(2), and 4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">44 is defined as S(3)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(3)S(3). Addition is defined recursively as follows.


a+0=a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+0=aa+0=a
a+S(b)=S(a+b)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+S(b)=S(a+b)a+S(b)=S(a+b)
.


Thus


2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; display: table-cell !important; width: 10000em !important;">2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=42+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4


proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4.

This is the unique value of 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 by axiom 4.

If x=2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=2+2x=2+2 and 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, then x=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=4x=4."


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. Again you are suggesting that there is an onus on experts is to convince idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately the idiots don't make that possible.
> 
> Sorry can you please explain a concept that took you 4 years of specialized training to understand in about ten seconds?
> 
> I just have a really short attention span.
> 
> 
> 
> So for example.
> 
> "To come up with a proof of such a seemingly simple fact as 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, we need a set of axioms to start with, and we need precise definitions of all the terms we are using. Depending on what set of axioms you start with, proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, and that no other natural number can equal 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 may be either very simple or surprisingly difficult. For example in Russell and Whitehead's Principia, it famously took over 300 pages of work before they could prove that 1+1=2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1+1=21+1=2. They started with a very sparse set of axioms though.
> 
> The most common set of axioms for the natural numbers are the Peano Axioms.
> 
> They are
> 
> 
> 0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 is a natural number.
> For every natural number x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, x=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=xx=x.
> For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx and y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y, then y=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=xy=x.
> For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, and z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">zz, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y and y=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=zy=z, then x=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=zx=z.
> For all a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa and b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb, if a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa is a natural number, and a=b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a=ba=b, then b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb is a natural number.
> For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)S(n) is a natural number.
> For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)=0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)=0S(n)=0 is false.
> For all natural numbers m" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">mm and n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, if S(m)=S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(m)=S(n)S(m)=S(n) then m=n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">m=nm=n.
> If K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK is a set such that 0&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">0∈K0∈K, and for every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, n&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">n∈Kn∈K implies that S(n)&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)∈KS(n)∈K, then K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK contains all natural numbers.
> Here S" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">SS is the successor function, it takes each natural number to its successor. This might seem like a complicated mess compared to the simplicity of natural numbers, but we need to be precise. We need to carefully construct the axioms so that no contradiction can be derived from them, and so they encapsulate what we understand to be the natural numbers. We want to be able to prove interesting statements about the natural numbers from them. Note that the axioms contain undefined terms. The axioms don't need to state what the terms mean, only what they do.
> 
> The following definitions are commonly used within this axiomatization. They are the definitions from Peano's original paper (An English translation is available in the book From Frege to Gödel), modified to start at 0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 instead of 1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11.
> 
> 1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11 is defined as S(0)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(0)S(0), 2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">22 is defined as S(1)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(1)S(1), 3" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">33 is defined as S(2)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(2)S(2), and 4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">44 is defined as S(3)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(3)S(3). Addition is defined recursively as follows.
> 
> 
> a+0=a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+0=aa+0=a
> a+S(b)=S(a+b)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+S(b)=S(a+b)a+S(b)=S(a+b)
> .
> 
> 
> Thus
> 
> 
> 2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; display: table-cell !important; width: 10000em !important;">2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=42+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4
> 
> 
> proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4.
> 
> This is the unique value of 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 by axiom 4.
> 
> If x=2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=2+2x=2+2 and 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, then x=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=4x=4."


no its the job of govenments to carry the bulk of the population with them.

if people idiots or otherwise dont belive what a govenment tells them, then at best they dont get relected at worsr you get a compkete breakdown in civil order, or anywhere in between, thats the nature of democracy,  you dont need to believe what the govenment tells you

the govenment need to lead, if no one follows it tends to end badly


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> There are a lot of facts that are not subject to interpretation.  It's a fact that in general if you break the law you will have a legal penalty for doing so.  It's a fact that you woke up today unless you haven't been to sleep since yesterday.  It's a fact that driving while drunk increases your risk of having an accident.  It's a fact that 2+2=4.
> 
> It's not difficult to know which facts are actual factual as we speak. That is controlled by the level of knowledge and ignorance you have on a subject.  There are people who dismiss fact out of ignorance, and there are who would rather that you don't know the truth.  But none of that changes what really happened.  2+2=4  even if a person chooses not to believe that.





JowGaWolf said:


> if you break the law you will have a legal penalty for doing so.


My wife is an attorney. She busted a gut when I showed that one. It would be nice if the world was that concrete. Boring but much better.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> My wife is an attorney. She busted a gut when I showed that one. It would be nice if the world was that concrete. Boring but much better.


can you get her to tell him you need to be convicted before you get fined, if indeed you get caught at all


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> My wife is an attorney. She busted a gut when I showed that one. It would be nice if the world was that concrete. Boring but much better.


Yeah.  What can I say.  I could have gone into more specifics and exceptions.  That just seemed too complicated.  Law is already complex enough as it is.  I try to keep it as simple as possible.  There's a disagreement on 2+2=4, so I fear being more accurate about a discussion on law would be too much lol.  

Tell your wife that I suffered 2 years of  law classes with an attorney and I hated every minute of it.  Every answer my professor had was a legal one and it was like she didn't have feelings.  She was just straight to the point and very detailed.  If the students had to give a definition or explain a case and the ruling (hated that too) then nothing less than detailed answer was accepted.  It was like 2 years of being wrong, assumptions weren't allowed, emotions weren't allowed.  So I'm happy that she could have to good chuckle.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> My wife is an attorney. She busted a gut when I showed that one. It would be nice if the world was that concrete. Boring but much better.


"can you get her to tell him you need to be convicted before you get fined, if indeed you get caught at al"  So Jobo just posted this, and I can already here my law professor  lol.


what are the laws of the where it occurred? Sate? City? Country? What was the offense? How does the jurisdiction view the offense? what is the classification of it?.  Is it criminal or civil?
Then everything after that would be.  - nope you got that wrong or not always, or according to legal statues, rulings, and a lot of other stuff that would just make me say.  Yeah.  you hand that stuff.  Only if you want, because I can't pay you lol. 

The first lesson of my legal education was to never start an argument with " Can you (the legal expert) tell (some other person) that A has to happen before B happens" that an never get into and argument with a lawyer about law. lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> It would be nice if the world was that concrete. Boring but much better.


It would be nice then I could argue with a lawyer lol.  But unfortunately simple doesn't cover all necessary aspect of a law. Make a simple law and the next thing that happens are "What abouts?" and "What ifs"   It's like a building a car with a person with never ending ideas of "wouldn't it be cool if we added..."


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> can you get her to tell him you need to be convicted before you get fined, if indeed you get caught at all


----------



## jks9199

Ladies & Gentlemen,
We have several open tickets on this thread.  I've locked it so that I can go through it with a fine tooth comb.  As a reminder, before I've had a chance to do more than glance over things...  Political posting should go to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.  And let's remember a few old rules for life:

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything.
If people are thinking you're foolish, why open your mouth and prove it?

The bottom line is that the current pandemic, and responses to it, are huge topics, with tons of opinions and even more emotional energy invested.  Solid data is hard to find, and it's even harder to get people to think rationally, whichever side of the debate they are on, or whatever their opinion may be.  Let's try to keep the discussions here civil and polite.  While many might feel differently, it is possible to disagree with a person, and still treat them with respect and courtesy.

jks9199
MT Administrator


----------



## jks9199

All right, folks...

After a review, consider this a final warning.  No more personal attacks.  Keep the discussion courteous and polite.  Much to my pleased amazement, y'all have done a decent job ducking politics.  Keep that up.

NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS.  Anyone making what the Moderation Team identifies as a personal attack will get points from this post on.

jks9199
MT Administrator

And -- just in case I'm unclear:
NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS!!


----------



## EdwardA

They unlocked this?

You can argue a point without pinning your disagreement on any one person.  That's what I try...

At least most of us enjoyed ping pong.  I'm pobably not any good at it any more.  I was really good at pool once too.  Then after a while, I lost the touch.  Maybe I just got bored with both.

That's one thing I like about MA, there's many many things to train at.


----------



## _Simon_

MT... yeah....


You are my fire
The one desire
Believe when I say
I want it that way

But we are two worlds apart
Can't reach to your heart
When you say
That I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
Tell me why
I never want to hear you say
I want it that way

Am I, your fire?
Your one, desire
Yes I know, it's too late
But I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
Tell me why,
I never want to hear you say
I want it that way

Now I can see that we've fallen apart
From the way that it used to be, yeah
No matter the distance
I want you to know
That deep down inside of me

You are my fire
The one desire
You are (you are, you are, you are)

Don't want to hear you say
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
(Don't want to hear you say)
I never want to hear you say
I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
Tell me why
I never want to hear you say
I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
Tell me why
I never want to hear you say
(Never want to hear you say it)
I want it that way

'Cause I want it that way


----------



## drop bear

But the way the other way of looking at the 2+2=4 buisness is to use scientific method. Sort of. So you would conduct a series of experiments and if they corroborate each other then we can be fairly confident with an answer. 

So we could look at 
1+1+1+1=4
1+1=2
2+1+1=4
1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1.

And so on. And finding all this consistency we can conclude 2+2=4.

This is also the MMA for self defense argument.

Now go wear a mask. Or do MMA.


----------



## EdwardA

drop bear said:


> But the way the other way of looking at the 2+2=4 buisness is to use scientific method. Sort of. So you would conduct a series of experiments and if they corroborate each other then we can be fairly confident with an answer.
> 
> So we could look at
> 1+1+1+1=4
> 1+1=2
> 2+1+1=4
> 1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1.
> 
> And so on. And finding all this consistency we can conclude 2+2=4.
> 
> This is also the MMA for self defense argument.
> 
> Now go wear a mask. Or do MMA.



If it's law or required by the business where you are, wear one, if it's not, it's your choice no matter what anybody says.

√16 does too or (16/4 + 16/4)/2.  Unlimited combos.

Just the other day, Fauci changed his mind again and said masks weren't very effective and that we should all be wearing full face shields.  Who here is going to get one?


----------



## _Simon_

EdwardA said:


> If it's law or required by the business where you are, wear one, if it's not, it's your choice no matter what anybody says.
> 
> √16 does too or (16/4 + 16/4)/2.  Unlimited combos.
> 
> Just the other day, Fauci changed his mind again and said masks weren't very effective and that we should all be wearing full face shields.  Who here is going to get one?


Ah what.. flip floppin, I actually like the idea of face shields, can actually see people's face and their expression, AND much easier to clean!


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> But the way the other way of looking at the 2+2=4 buisness is to use scientific method. Sort of. So you would conduct a series of experiments and if they corroborate each other then we can be fairly confident with an answer.
> 
> So we could look at
> 1+1+1+1=4
> 1+1=2
> 2+1+1=4
> 1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1.
> 
> And so on. And finding all this consistency we can conclude 2+2=4.
> 
> This is also the MMA for self defense argument.
> 
> Now go wear a mask. Or do MMA.


well that doesnt prove anything, it totally dependent on the coubrobg system you use

growing up we use based 12 for money and distance and base 16 for weight,

the americand still do for weight and distance

in base two its 0100, in base 3 its 11, in base 4 its 10. in base 16 its one quarter or .25 as well as 4, but all answers are correct unless the question specifies which units should be used for the answer

it only becomes a fact if you prefix it with "" in the base 10 system"

so as i said that fact is total dependent on interpretation


----------



## CB Jones

If a place of business asks me to where a mask...I put one on....other than that I do not where one because I do not like them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Just the other day, Fauci changed his mind again and said masks weren't very effective and that we should all be wearing full face shields. Who here is going to get one?


I will need a source for that because last night he was still saying to wear masks.
Source: CNN Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says

*"Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says*
From CNN's Jen Christensen

Correct use of masks would help the country prevent the “scary” number of predicted Covid-19 deaths, Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN today."


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> If a place of business asks me to where a mask...I put one on....other than that I do not where one because I do not like them.


Just getting some clarification here.   So if a business doesn't ask you to wear one, then you don't wear one?


----------



## Mitlov

JowGaWolf said:


> I will need a source for that because last night he was still saying to wear masks.
> Source: CNN Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says
> 
> *"Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says*
> From CNN's Jen Christensen
> 
> Correct use of masks would help the country prevent the “scary” number of predicted Covid-19 deaths, Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN today."
> 
> View attachment 23121



I took his comments as "consider wearing a face shield in addition to your mask" instead of "stop wearing your mask."  Masks are better at catching droplets you're expelling, so an asymptomatic person doesn't infect other people.  Face shields are better at protecting you from droplets floating in the air.  For people who work in higher-risk environments, both is definitely a good option.  

My wife works at an elementary school.  Right now it's online-only, but if they transition to in-person later this year, she'll definitely be wearing both.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> Just getting some clarification here.   So if a business doesn't ask you to wear one, then you don't wear one?



Yes


----------



## Bruce7

Scott W. Atlas, this is the presidents number one advicer on covid.
He wants us to do the Sweden model which has a higher dead rate per million people than the U.S.
Watch fox news and see his plan.


----------



## Bruce7

jobo said:


> ive no idea what that means ??


Did you go to moives in the 70's.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> Yes


im the same, apart from here, businesses  never ask you to wear one, as the govenment has told them not to, so they dont , apart from pne buss company and the trains


----------



## Bruce7

dvcochran said:


> It was a really, really bad fiction movie made around 1970.


I like it.


----------



## jobo

Bruce7 said:


> Did you go to moives in the 70's.


i did, but theres an aeful lot of $$$$ i didnt see, even back then i was discerning,  i wouldnt go and watch star wars  and ive not seen it since, not that in to childtens films, even when i was one.

we had a local flix that didnt care much about the film classification system, so a lot of porn and violence was watched


----------



## CB Jones

Bruce7 said:


> Scott W. Atlas, this is the presidents number one advicer on covid.
> He wants us to do the Sweden model which has a higher dead rate per million people than the U.S.
> Watch fox news and see his plan.



Well Sweden acknowledged they should have done a better job of isolating the elderly and people with preexisting conditions and have corrected that.

Their deaths were within the first couple months and have steadily fallen to almost none currently.  Throughout this ordeal, they have had less than 10,000 deaths.

They also did not have the economic fallout.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> Well Sweden acknowledged they should have done a better job of isolating the elderly and people with preexisting conditions and have corrected that.
> 
> Their deaths were within the first couple months and have steadily fallen to almost none currently.  Throughout this ordeal, they have had less than 10,000 deaths.
> 
> They also did not have the economic fallout.


The economic fallout in Sweden is better than some European countries, but similar to Norway and Denmark.  The difference being that Norway and Denmark didn't sacrifice their sick and elderly.  

Point being that the economy has less to do with herd immunity strategy than Scandinavian economic characteristics.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> The economic fallout in Sweden is better than some European countries, but similar to Norway and Denmark.  The difference being that Norway and Denmark didn't sacrifice their sick and elderly.
> 
> Point being that the economy has less to do with herd immunity strategy than Scandinavian economic characteristics.



And they acknowledged that at the beginning they did not take the steps needed to protect their sick and elderly.  They have made corrections and now their death rates are one of the lowest over the last few months.

Just pointing that out.  It was posted their death rates are higher than the US but that is largely due to mistakes made within the first month of the pandemic.


----------



## Bruce7

CB Jones said:


> Well Sweden acknowledged they should have done a better job of isolating the elderly and people with preexisting conditions and have corrected that.
> 
> Their deaths were within the first couple months and have steadily fallen to almost none currently.  Throughout this ordeal, they have had less than 10,000 deaths.
> 
> They also did not have the economic fallout.[/Quote
> 
> All statements above are true.
> True, Sweden death total is 5, 835, that is less than 10,000. Total population 10,110,577.
> True, They also did not have the economic fallout, because they did very little to stop the spread of the virus.
> 
> *U.S is number 10 in the world for deaths per million,        588. in other words there are over 200 countries doing better than us.
> Sweden is number 11 in the world for deaths per million, 581. Total deaths 5,835 in country with 10,110,577 total population.
> Tiawan is 187 in the world for deaths per million,               0.3. Total deaths        7 in country with 23,824,604 total population. Twice the population of Sweden.
> 
> Looking at the numbers I prefer the Tiawan Model.*


----------



## Bruce7

CB Jones
All statements above are true.
True, Sweden death total is 5, 835, that is less than 10,000. Total population 10,110,577.
True, They also did not have the economic fallout, because they did very little to stop the spread of the virus.

*U.S is number 10 in the world for deaths per million, 588. in other words there are over 200 countries doing better than us.
Sweden is number 11 in the world for deaths per million, 581. Total deaths 5,835 in country with 10,110,577 total population.
Tiawan is 187 in the world for deaths per million, 0.3. Total deaths 7 in country with 23,824,604 total population. Twice the population of Sweden.

Looking at the numbers I prefer the Tiawan Model.*


----------



## jobo

Bruce7 said:


> CB Jones
> All statements above are true.
> True, Sweden death total is 5, 835, that is less than 10,000. Total population 10,110,577.
> True, They also did not have the economic fallout, because they did very little to stop the spread of the virus.
> 
> *U.S is number 10 in the world for deaths per million, 588. in other words there are over 200 countries doing better than us.
> Sweden is number 11 in the world for deaths per million, 581. Total deaths 5,835 in country with 10,110,577 total population.
> Tiawan is 187 in the world for deaths per million, 0.3. Total deaths 7 in country with 23,824,604 total population. Twice the population of Sweden.
> 
> Looking at the numbers I prefer the Tiawan Model.*


you will also find a,strong correlation  between the number of deaths per miklion and the number of elderly per million,  

so your not comparing apples with apples


----------



## Bruce7

jobo said:


> you will also find a,strong correlation  between the number of deaths per miklion and the number of elderly per million,
> 
> so your not comparing apples with apples



23,824,604 x .15=  3,573,690 people over 65

7/3.5 =2 people per million is still better than 581 people per million.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I will need a source for that because last night he was still saying to wear masks.
> Source: CNN Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says
> 
> *"Masks would help prevent a surge in coronavirus deaths by the New Year, Fauci says*
> From CNN's Jen Christensen
> 
> Correct use of masks would help the country prevent the “scary” number of predicted Covid-19 deaths, Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN today."
> 
> View attachment 23121



ABC News.  ..don't know how anybody missed it, but it was a month ago.  He changes every month..in October he'll come out with something else.

Dr. Fauci: Wear goggles or eye shields to prevent spread of COVID-19; flu vaccine a must


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> And they acknowledged that at the beginning they did not take the steps needed to protect their sick and elderly.  They have made corrections and now their death rates are one of the lowest over the last few months.
> 
> Just pointing that out.  It was posted their death rates are higher than the US but that is largely due to mistakes made within the first month of the pandemic.


Sure, but you also said that they did not experience the economic fallout.  Based on the context of your post (whether you intended it or not), it sounded very much as though you were suggesting some kind of causal relationship between avoiding shutting down and the economy.  (i.e., "Sure, more people died, but on the bright side, because they didn't shut down they didn't experience the same level of economic fallout.")  However, there does NOT appear to be a causal relationship between their economic resilience and their decision to avoid shutting down, because the two neighboring countries (Denmark and Norway) did shut down, and had similar economic impact without the unneeded deaths.

Simply put, yes, they did make mistakes and people died who didn't need to.  AND it doesn't appear so far that their economy benefited from it.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> ABC News.  ..don't know how anybody missed it, but it was a month ago.  He changes every month..in October he'll come out with something else.
> 
> Dr. Fauci: Wear goggles or eye shields to prevent spread of COVID-19; flu vaccine a must


Come on, man.  Did you read that article?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well that doesnt prove anything, it totally dependent on the coubrobg system you use
> 
> growing up we use based 12 for money and distance and base 16 for weight,
> 
> the americand still do for weight and distance
> 
> in base two its 0100, in base 3 its 11, in base 4 its 10. in base 16 its one quarter or .25 as well as 4, but all answers are correct unless the question specifies which units should be used for the answer
> 
> it only becomes a fact if you prefix it with "" in the base 10 system"
> 
> so as i said that fact is total dependent on interpretation



Interpret it some other way. Make 2+2= egg and try to get everything else to work.

Then go build a plane or a car or land someone on the moon.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mitlov said:


> I took his comments as "consider wearing a face shield in addition to your mask" instead of "stop wearing your mask." Masks are better at catching droplets you're expelling, so an asymptomatic person doesn't infect other people. Face shields are better at protecting you from droplets floating in the air. For people who work in higher-risk environments, both is definitely a good option.


That makes sense and it sounds like something Dr. Fauci would say.  

The whole face shield thing makes me think. "might as well have some fun with it".  Time to suit up lol. Make it out of some anti-viral materials, add a little ac and a filter, some heads up displays, and an audo /mic system and you'll be all set. lol


----------



## drop bear

By the way. I have only found one brand of mask that is CSIRO tested and probably works.

Which is an Australian made fair air mask.

It is also fire proof because that was its original function.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Interparate it some other way. Make 2+2= egg and try to get everything else to work.
> 
> Then go build a plane or a car or land someone on the moon.


building cars planes an space travel are all calculated in base 2, no one has used base 10 for such in several decades. its very 1960s

your not far behind the other guy in things you dont know


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> building cars planes an space travel are all calculated in base 2, no one has used base 10 for such in several decades. its very 1960s
> 
> your not far behind the other guy in things you dont know



Which is 10+10=100

Which still proves 2+2=4

Just in binary


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  Did you read that article?



Sure, I read it, but I don't believe anything he says. He hasn't been on the front lines of anything but a burocracy for decades.  Hes been all over the place on many issues.  Here's an example of how he screwed up.  The actual scientists that created the tests for covid specified 20-30 "amplification cycles" so there wouldn't be a lot of errors and false positives.  Fauci told all the labs to do 40.  Now it may be impossible to straighten out the inaccuracy that caused.  Nobody knows how accurate the numbers are because of the mistake.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bruce7 said:


> Scott W. Atlas, this is the presidents number one advicer on covid.
> He wants us to do the Sweden model which has a higher dead rate per million people than the U.S.
> Watch fox news and see his plan.


Nope.  not me.  I'll pass.  He's a radiologist.  So all of this virus stuff is out of his league.  I'll go to him when I need take a look on the inside of my body but not anything else.  His studies weren't in medicine. It was in something like health policy or something like that.  Can't remember exactly.

The only way he can effectively make any decision about viruses is to listen to  someone who studies viruses and then create a policy to fit that advice.  There's a lot of things that the Heard Immunity concept doesn't work with, and that's with viruses we are familiar with.  Doctors and scientists don't know enough about the virus to even determine if Heard Immunity is possible.  But I guess they will find out in a year or two with Sweden.  I'll be keeping a close eye on that country as they go into the fall and winter.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Which is 10+10=100
> 
> Which still proves 2+2=4
> 
> Just in binary


what ?

the answer to 2 plus  2 in binary is 0100, christ im glad you took up bouncing rather than the the offer  of an internship at nasa


----------



## drop bear

EdwardA said:


> Sure, I read it, but I don't believe anything he says. He hasn't been on the front lines of anything but a burocracy for decades.  Hes been all over the place on many issues.  Here's an example of how he screwed up.  The actual scientists that created the tests for covid specified 20-30 "amplification cycles" so there wouldn't be a lot of errors and false positives.  Fauci told all the labs to do 40.  Now it may be impossible to straighten out the inaccuracy the created.



Ok. So what do the other expert sources say?

Because that would be the sensible follow up there wouldn't it?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> what ?
> 
> the answer to 2 plus  2 in binary is 0100, christ im glad you took up bouncing rather than the the offer  of an internship at nasa



Prove it.


----------



## jobo

, its of no use to you, , you carry on counting, your fights in base 10, i cant think of any reason why you would need to exercise your intelect farther than that, irs like trying to teach my dog to dance,  it just ends up annoying the dog


----------



## drop bear

Ok. Then we will discard the whole binary argument and 2+2 still equals 4 because maths messes up when it doesn't.

Which is how we prove things.


----------



## Flying Crane

EdwardA said:


> Sure, I read it, but I don't believe anything he says. He hasn't been on the front lines of anything but a burocracy for decades.  Hes been all over the place on many issues.  Here's an example of how he screwed up.  The actual scientists that created the tests for covid specified 20-30 "amplification cycles" so there wouldn't be a lot of errors and false positives.  Fauci told all the labs to do 40.  Now it may be impossible to straighten out the inaccuracy that caused.  Nobody knows how accurate the numbers are because of the mistake.


Do you have some sources for this claim?

Faucci does change what he says, but he bases it on the current understanding of the virus, which changes.  He doesn’t simply change what he says on a whim.


----------



## jobo

[QUcooz,,,OTE="drop bear, post: 2010909, member: 32080"]Ok. Then we will discard the whole binary argument and 2+2 still equals 4 because maths messes up when it doesn't.

Which is how we prove things.[/QUOTE]
what, have you been drinking
computers do maths just fine , and so do people who usr binary, its just of no use to you,, coz,,,


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  Did you read that article?


I read the article right after I read your post.  Protection vs lowering the risk.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Sure, but you also said that they did not experience the economic fallout.  Based on the context of your post (whether you intended it or not), it sounded very much as though you were suggesting some kind of causal relationship between avoiding shutting down and the economy.  (i.e., "Sure, more people died, but on the bright side, because they didn't shut down they didn't experience the same level of economic fallout.")  However, there does NOT appear to be a causal relationship between their economic resilience and their decision to avoid shutting down, because the two neighboring countries (Denmark and Norway) did shut down, and had similar economic impact without the unneeded deaths.
> 
> Simply put, yes, they did make mistakes and people died who didn't need to.  AND it doesn't appear so far that their economy benefited from it.


its still not apples and apples, swedens death rate oer million,  it just about the same as the usa, they just dmsaved them srlves all that bother,

its not fair to compare it with say norway, as no one goes there,, in which case the number of ibfection enteribg is much reduced,,, i went once it was closed, as it was Wednesday  they shut every thing down on a wednesday


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Sure, I read it, but I don't believe anything he says. He hasn't been on the front lines of anything but a burocracy for decades.  Hes been all over the place on many issues.  Here's an example of how he screwed up.  The actual scientists that created the tests for covid specified 20-30 "amplification cycles" so there wouldn't be a lot of errors and false positives.  Fauci told all the labs to do 40.  Now it may be impossible to straighten out the inaccuracy that caused.  Nobody knows how accurate the numbers are because of the mistake.


Give source please.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Do you have some sources for this claim?
> 
> Faucci does change what he says, but he bases it on the current understanding of the virus, which changes.  He doesn’t simply change what he says on a whim.


It seems like Facui is changing things but he really isn't.  He's basing his responses on the actions that people take.  If people do A,  then the outcome is A.  If people do B, then the outcome is B.   If the people don't do A, then we are looking at possible outcomes of B,C,D, E,F.  People think he keeps changing, but he's clearing working the.  "what if scenarios" and the likely outcomes.   He can't give a stable answer because that all depends on the action of the people.

I surprised that so many people miss that.  He's always saying stuff like "if we continue to do A then we can expect outcome A.   But,  If we don't do that then we can expect outcome B."  He's been correct on all of the scenarios that would cause an increase.  Much of which is playing out in the U.S. now.

I also think that he would have been much clearer if he didn't have to dance around the politics and trying not to appear to be "going against" government leadership.   I would rather that he tell it like it is.  If it's terrible news, then it's just terrible news.  Sometimes life is like that.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Sure, I read it, but I don't believe anything he says. He hasn't been on the front lines of anything but a burocracy for decades.  Hes been all over the place on many issues.  Here's an example of how he screwed up.  The actual scientists that created the tests for covid specified 20-30 "amplification cycles" so there wouldn't be a lot of errors and false positives.  Fauci told all the labs to do 40.  Now it may be impossible to straighten out the inaccuracy that caused.  Nobody knows how accurate the numbers are because of the mistake.


It really appears that you are making things up.  Can you provide some credible information to support your statements?  So far, you've provided one link that doesn't say what you seem to think it said.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> its still not apples and apples, swedens death rate oer million,  it just about the same as the usa, they just dmsaved them srlves all that bother,
> 
> its not fair to compare it with say norway, as no one goes there,, in which case the number of ibfection enteribg is much reduced,,, i went once it was closed, as it was Wednesday  they shut every thing down on a wednesday


Wait. So, hold on   

2+2 isn't 4, 
Sweden's economy isn't comparable to Norway or Denmark's, 
But the USA and Sweden are somehow comparable?

Give me a break


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Wait. So, hold on
> 
> 2+2 isn't 4,
> Sweden's economy isn't comparable to Norway or Denmark's,
> But the USA and Sweden are somehow comparable?
> 
> Give me a break


there no more conparable than any other 3 countries picked at random , , just coz they are sort of next to each other, , denmark is also next to germany, germany is next to poland and poland is next to russia,,, so what exactly,


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> there no more conparable than any other 3 countries picked at random , , just coz they are sort of next to each other, , denmark is also next to germany, germany is next to piland and poland is next to russia,,, so what exactly


Cool.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> [QUcooz,,,OTE="drop bear, post: 2010909, member: 32080"]Ok. Then we will discard the whole binary argument and 2+2 still equals 4 because maths messes up when it doesn't.
> 
> Which is how we prove things.


what, have you been drinking
computers do maths just fine , and so do people who usr binary, its just of no use to you,, coz,,,[/QUOTE]

Because I don't program computers and use the decimal system to handle any maths I do. 

Because binary is arduous to do manually and computers do it for us.

In fact I would be suprised if anyone manually uses binary. 

Therefore the binary argument even though it supports the argument that 2+2=4 is largely irrelevant. And you are only using it because you don't have anything to contradict my proof. 

And now you are desperately trying to say "Nah you stupid" because that convinces all the Karen's you usually talk to at the pub.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> what, have you been drinking
> computers do maths just fine , and so do people who usr binary, its just of no use to you,, coz,,,



Because I don't program computers and use the decimal system to handle any maths I do.

Because binary is arduous to do manually and computers do it for us.

In fact I would be suprised if anyone manually uses binary.

Therefore the binary argument even though it supports the argument that 2+2=4 is largely irrelevant. And you are only using it because you don't have ,anything to contradict my proof.

And now you are desperately trying to say "Nah you stupid" because that convinces all the Karen's you usually talk to at the pub.[/QUOTE]
ive not said your stupid, but its pretty clear you think you are, and im not argueing
perhaps we are both wrong and your just a masive under achiever
people who do computer science have to be able to use binary,  other wise its all 1 and 0s


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> It seems like Facui is changing things but he really isn't.  He's basing his responses on the actions that people take.  If people do A,  then the outcome is A.  If people do B, then the outcome is B.   If the people don't do A, then we are looking at possible outcomes of B,C,D, E,F.  People think he keeps changing, but he's clearing working the.  "what if scenarios" and the likely outcomes.   He can't give a stable answer because that all depends on the action of the people.
> 
> I surprised that so many people miss that.  He's always saying stuff like "if we continue to do A then we can expect outcome A.   But,  If we don't do that then we can expect outcome B."  He's been correct on all of the scenarios that would cause an increase.  Much of which is playing out in the U.S. now.
> 
> I also think that he would have been much clearer if he didn't have to dance around the politics and trying not to appear to be "going against" government leadership.   I would rather that he tell it like it is.  If it's terrible news, then it's just terrible news.  Sometimes life is like that.



The issue is you are herding cats. We could again go to the experts and they would tell us the things needed to combat covid.

But they are unpleasant and nobody will do it. So the policy becomes what you can actually make people do rather than what works. 

And it turns out people are not even able to wear a mask, wash their hands or stand a meter apart. 

Which means more people will die than is neccecary. And more oppression will be imposed than is neccecary.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Because I don't program computers and use the decimal system to handle any maths I do.
> 
> Because binary is arduous to do manually and computers do it for us.
> 
> In fact I would be suprised if anyone manually uses binary.
> 
> Therefore the binary argument even though it supports the argument that 2+2=4 is largely irrelevant. And you are only using it because you don't have anything to contradict my proof.
> 
> And now you are desperately trying to say "Nah you stupid" because that convinces all the Karen's you usually talk to at the pub.
> ive not said your stupid, but its pretty clear you think you are, and im not argueing
> 
> people who do computer science have to be able to use binary,  other wise its all 1 and 0s



Who manually works out binary?

I did it once in high school to find out how it works. And then like I am doing now a computer is doing it for me.

The same with people who do computer sciences.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> ive not said your stupid, but its pretty clear you think you are, and im not argueing
> 
> people who do computer science have to be able to use binary,  other wise its all 1 and 0s



Who manually works out binary?

I did it once in high school to find out how it works. And then like I am doing now a computer is doing it for me.

The same with people who do computer sciences.[/QUOTE]
peopke who get qualification in computer science need to be able to use base two, it part of what we call higher level qualifications

some people can also use calculus,  which also bares little resmblance to base 10

and that owsky american are still using base 12 and base 16,


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Who manually works out binary?
> 
> I did it once in high school to find out how it works. And then like I am doing now a computer is doing it for me.
> 
> The same with people who do computer sciences.
> peopke who get qualification in computer science need to be able to use base two, it part of what we call higher level qualifications
> 
> some people can also use calculus,  which also bares little resmblance to base 10
> 
> and that owsky american are still using base 12 and base 16,



Ok. Here is the qualification for computer science.

Find me where people are learning binary.

Course list for the Bachelor of Computer Science - my.UQ - The University of Queensland, Australia


----------



## Steve

Here's a fun puzzle to consider.  You guys may already have heard it.  

Three guys are traveling together, and their car breaks down.  The mechanic says he can fix it for $300, so they each kick in $100.  Mechanic fixes the car, and it actually takes him less time than he thought, so he gives a kid working at the garage $50 and sends him over to give it back to these guys.  Kid think to himself, well, no way $50 gets split up equally, so I'll give them each $10 back and pocket the other $20.  

All told, each of the guys paid $90, which totals up to $270.  Plus the $20 the kid kept equals $290.  What happened to the other $10?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> peopke who get qualification in computer science need to be able to use base two, it part of what we call higher level qualifications
> 
> some people can also use calculus,  which also bares little resmblance to base 10
> 
> and that owsky american are still using base 12 and base 16,


People do "use calculus" but I'm pretty sure they let the calculators do the heavy lifting.  Where are we going with this?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Ok. Here is the qualification for computer science.
> 
> Find me where people are learning binary.
> 
> Course list for the Bachelor of Computer Science - my.UQ - The University of Queensland, Australia


There were 7 major fields in computer science - requirement for qualifying exam.

- Computer architect
- Operation system.
- Computer programming
- Artificial intelligence
- Numerical analysis
- Automata theory
- Database

Not sure this requirement has been changed or not. Back in my time, the following fields didn't even exist:

- Search engine.
- Anti-virus
- Computer hacker
- Web design
- ...


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There were 7 major fields in computer science - requirement for qualifying exam.
> 
> - Computer architect
> - Operation system.
> - Computer programming
> - Artificial intelligence
> - Numerical analysis
> - Automata theory
> - Database
> 
> Not sure this requirement has been changed or not. Back in my time, the following fields didn't even exist:
> 
> - Search engine.
> - Anti-virus
> - Computer hacker
> - Web design
> - ...



I couldn't find anywhere where people need a working knowledge of binary though. 

Yeah know it exists but I don't think it ever gets used.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Here's a fun puzzle to consider.  You guys may already have heard it.
> 
> Three guys are traveling together, and their car breaks down.  The mechanic says he can fix it for $300, so they each kick in $100.  Mechanic fixes the car, and it actually takes him less time than he thought, so he gives a kid working at the garage $50 and sends him over to give it back to these guys.  Kid think to himself, well, no way $50 gets split up equally, so I'll give them each $10 back and pocket the other $20.
> 
> All told, each of the guys paid $90, which totals up to $270.  Plus the $20 the kid kept equals $290.  What happened to the other $10?



$250 to fix the car + $20 fee from kid = $270.

$90 x 3 = $270.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> computers do maths just fine ,


  I guess my computer is broken


----------



## JowGaWolf

not sure why there's a double post


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> I couldn't find anywhere where people need a working knowledge of binary though.
> 
> Yeah know it exists but I don't think it ever gets used.


You will need to write some binary code to create a machine patch for your customer hardware (such as a printer) to fix a certain bug. Before online down load become available, you have to send someone to your customer site to do that job.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> People do "use calculus" but I'm pretty sure they let the calculators do the heavy lifting.  Where are we going with this?


never used calculas then have you,


----------



## jobo

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You will need to write some binary code to create a machine patch for your customer hardware (such as a printer) to fix a certain bug. Before online down load become available, you have to send someone to your customer site to do that job.


and remember,  there are 10 types of people in the world, those that undrstand binary and those that dont


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> $250 to fix the car + $20 fee from kid = $270.
> 
> $90 x 3 = $270.


Right.  Should be.  But the guys paid $90 each.  And the kid kept $20.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jobo said:


> and remember,  there are 10 types of people in the world, those that undrstand binary and those that dont


*There Are Two Kinds of People in the world - Greeks, and Everyone Else Who Wish They Was Greek.*


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> It seems like Facui is changing things but he really isn't.  He's basing his responses on the actions that people take.  If people do A,  then the outcome is A.  If people do B, then the outcome is B.   If the people don't do A, then we are looking at possible outcomes of B,C,D, E,F.  People think he keeps changing, but he's clearing working the.  "what if scenarios" and the likely outcomes.   He can't give a stable answer because that all depends on the action of the people.
> 
> I surprised that so many people miss that.  He's always saying stuff like "if we continue to do A then we can expect outcome A.   But,  If we don't do that then we can expect outcome B."  He's been correct on all of the scenarios that would cause an increase.  Much of which is playing out in the U.S. now.
> 
> I also think that he would have been much clearer if he didn't have to dance around the politics and trying not to appear to be "going against" government leadership.   I would rather that he tell it like it is.  If it's terrible news, then it's just terrible news.  Sometimes life is like that.


Yeah, it really is not that difficult to understand the information that Faucci is giving, and how this is playing out.  Not rocket science by a long shot.  I am shocked that people can’t seem to follow along.

The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals.  They should have been up front about that, and it has harmed credibility because some people continue to cite that as an example of him simply “changing his mind”.  Yes, that was a misstep.  But that is the only one I will concede, but I also acknowledge the reasoning for it.  Everything else was as you describe above, or based on a changing understanding of how the virus behaves.  It is most definitely not just willy-nilly.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jobo said:


> Therefore the binary argument even though it supports the argument that 2+2=4 is largely irrelevant.


Finally.  And it's  not irrelevant.  It's a FACT.   2+2=4.   If you are doing measurements of any type, then  the logic 2+2=10 is going cause you a lot problems.  In a lot of areas.  That's why I told you FACTS matter.  You can believe 2+2=10 all day long.  You can't get the entire world to believe it and the the only thing they will be is Wrong.

The whole world can believe in the Flat Earth Model  all they want, but when they start calculating other things then what they will discover is just a lot of wrong and impossibilities.  Facts Matter.  





No matter what type of math that you do.  2+2=4.  Such simple things are the foundation of advance mathematics. If 2+2 doesn't = 4 then there's a lot of advanced math and calculations that are going to be screwed.


----------



## Bruce7

Steve said:


> People do "use calculus" but I'm pretty sure they let the calculators do the heavy lifting.  Where are we going with this?



When I work for Schlumberger and Baker the Engineers and Scientist used computers to do the heavy lifting , programing a computer to do very compicated work
requires the engineer to understand calculus. You have to have a true understanding of calculas as normal calculas formulas can not be programinto a computer.
Most programers now days don't know *FORTRAN.* You could do it in *C *but I think it would be harder.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *There Are Two Kinds of People in the world - Greeks, and Everyone Else Who Wish They Was Greek.*


----------



## Bruce7

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, it really is not that difficult to understand the information that Faucci is giving, and how this is playing out.  Not rocket science by a long shot.  I am shocked that people can’t seem to follow along.
> 
> The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals.  They should have been up front about that, and it has harmed credibility because some people continue to cite that as an example of him simply “changing his mind”.  Yes, that was a misstep.  But that is the only one I will concede, but I also acknowledge the reasoning for it.  Everything else was as you describe above, or based on a changing understanding of how the virus behaves.  It is most definitely not just willy-nilly.



IMO, He gives the best information he knows at that moment. Plus he tries not to be politcal. For example, he will not say the president is wrong, but will say don't put disifectant in your body. He has to walk a fine line.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals.


I don't think this is a misstep or a mistake.    They knew in advance that they were short masks.   That statement was said to keep people from rushing to the store and buying up masks.  In other words it was a lie that was said to reduce the demand.  But history has always shown that when government says  "Don't worry about it" then you probably should be worried about it.  "if they say mask won't help" then it probably will.  That's the initial lie that is told to keep people from panicking.  The U.S. government has always been known for that initial lie before the truth comes out.

They did the same thing with the drinking water in Flint Michigan.  They always hope the lie will buy them time because they are not prepared.

I didn't buy it because, I watch the news and the one thing that I saw in every country was that they were wearing masks.  Sort of like.  "If everyone else is getting a mask then why don't I need one?"  Then you see nurses wear masks.  If masks don't protect then why did the nurses and doctors need one?  This was played out in every country.  When stuff like that doesn't add up, I do the opposite.   Just like when they said there's enough food for everyone, then there wasn't.   My family didn't suffer because we stocked up.  We are stocked up for the fall and winter now. Not only with food but with other essentials, in the event that fall and winter will turn into a nightmare.

They were already extremely concerned that the outbreak was on the horizon.  This is a video in January 2020






This is a report that they came out with in September 2019.
*A WORLD AT RISK
Annual report on global preparednessfor health emergenciesGlobal Preparedness Monitoring Board*
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf


When you look at all of the past stuff, there's no way that a person who studies viruses would think that a mask wouldn't help.   Now the age thing, they botched big time.  They didn't think that through at all.  Tell half of the population that they will have mild symptoms and then tell the other half that they will die.  There's no way to get those 2 groups on the same page after saying stuff like that.  All of the sake of not making people panic and for thinking everyone is going to do the correct thing on their own, or have the same conclusion about the danger of the virus.  Those guys where masks all the time. lol.

I'm going to let my computer read some of these things to me. Information of stuff that was scheduled to be addressed at the G7 over the years
G7 and G20 Background Books


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think this is a misstep or a mistake.    They knew in advance that they were short masks.   That statement was said to keep people from rushing to the store and buying up masks.  In other words it was a lie that was said to reduce the demand.  But history has always shown that when government says  "Don't worry about it" then you probably should be worried about it.  "if they say mask won't help" then it probably will.  That's the initial lie that is told to keep people from panicking.  The U.S. government has always been known for that initial lie before the truth comes out.
> 
> They did the same thing with the drinking water in Flint Michigan.  They always hope the lie will buy them time because they are not prepared.
> 
> I didn't buy it because, I watch the news and the one thing that I saw in every country was that they were wearing masks.  Sort of like.  "If everyone else is getting a mask then why don't I need one?"  Then you see nurses wear masks.  If masks don't protect then why did the nurses and doctors need one?  This was played out in every country.  When stuff like that doesn't add up, I do the opposite.   Just like when they said there's enough food for everyone, then there wasn't.   My family didn't suffer because we stocked up.  We are stocked up for the fall and winter now. Not only with food but with other essentials, in the event that fall and winter will turn into a nightmare.
> 
> They were already extremely concerned that the outbreak was on the horizon.  This is a video in January 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a report that they came out with in September 2019.
> *A WORLD AT RISK
> Annual report on global preparednessfor health emergenciesGlobal Preparedness Monitoring Board*
> https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf
> 
> 
> When you look at all of the past stuff, there's no way that a person who studies viruses would think that a mask wouldn't help.   Now the age thing, they botched big time.  They didn't think that through at all.  Tell half of the population that they will have mild symptoms and then tell the other half that they will die.  There's no way to get those 2 groups on the same page after saying stuff like that.  All of the sake of not making people panic and for thinking everyone is going to do the correct thing on their own, or have the same conclusion about the danger of the virus.  Those guys where masks all the time. lol.
> 
> I'm going to let my computer read some of these things to me. Information of stuff that was scheduled to be addressed at the G7 over the years
> G7 and G20 Background Books
> View attachment 23126
> 
> 
> View attachment 23125


I completely understand why it was done.  But it was a mistake because it provides ammunition to those who want to pretend that Faucci is just changing his mind all the time, gives them an “example” that they can use to spread misinformation.  That undermines confidence in the few people like Faucci who we can actually have confidence in.  They should have been honest with the message: “ supplies are short, please let the medical professionals have them until we can secure a stockpile”.  Simple.

It was a mistake in messaging, even though the intentions were good.


----------



## Flying Crane

You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well.  And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation. 

The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid.  However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  Did you read that article?



Actually, did you watch the video? His comments and demeanor are a bit different than what ABC wrote in the article.


----------



## EdwardA

Flying Crane said:


> Do you have some sources for this claim?
> 
> Faucci does change what he says, but he bases it on the current understanding of the virus, which changes.  He doesn’t simply change what he says on a whim.



That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Here's a fun puzzle to consider.  You guys may already have heard it.
> 
> Three guys are traveling together, and their car breaks down.  The mechanic says he can fix it for $300, so they each kick in $100.  Mechanic fixes the car, and it actually takes him less time than he thought, so he gives a kid working at the garage $50 and sends him over to give it back to these guys.  Kid think to himself, well, no way $50 gets split up equally, so I'll give them each $10 back and pocket the other $20.
> 
> All told, each of the guys paid $90, which totals up to $270.  Plus the $20 the kid kept equals $290.  What happened to the other $10?


Thanks for the chuckles on this one. I've never heard it before, but when you got to the.  "What happened to the other $10" I was like Huh.  What you talking about Wilis?" I hope more people try this. lol.   Stuff like this gives insight on a lot of other things.


----------



## Flying Crane

EdwardA said:


> That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.


So...you don’t have a citation for your claim?

You are the one who is just making stuff up.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I completely understand why it was done. But it was a mistake because it provides ammunition to those who want to pretend that Faucci is just changing his mind all the time, gives them an “example” that they can use to spread misinformation. That undermines confidence in the few people like Faucci who we can actually have confidence in. They should have been honest with the message: “ supplies are short, please let the medical professionals have them until we can secure a stockpile”. Simple.


I feel the same way too.  They should have started with that.  I won't even lie, had I not been watching what was happening in other countries, I would have probably believed that too.  I just figured whatever was happening to them would eventually happen to us.  After all we are all humans.  

But then again, if I factor who they have to work with to get things done.  I can see the difficulty.  Fauci doesn't have any power to command beyond the organization he works for.  It's possible that they wanted to be straight forward, but other forces wanted to deny it.  We often see similar story lines in movies where the scientist tries to give warnings, but the government waters down the message.  There will be a time when the truth comes out.  Should be entertaining either way.  I'm not giving a pass to Fauci or the CDC, but I would have loved to hear what was going on in those behind the scenes meetings.  I hope someone recorded it all.  Like maybe they did their meetings on webex and someone made a recording lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well.  And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation.
> 
> The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid.  However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.


I saw this today and I was like.  hmmmm.  7000 people who didn't have to have it.
"*More than 7,000 college-age people in Missouri have tested positive for the coronavirus since classes resumed in mid-August, fueling spikes in confirmed cases in the state’s college towns, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday.*" source: Parson: 7,000-plus Missouri college students test positive

7000 new opportunities to spread the virus to someone else.


----------



## EdwardA

Flying Crane said:


> You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well.  And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation.
> 
> The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid.  However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.




Here's one article on the amplification cycles.

Coronavirus tests are extremely sensitive. (That could be a problem, experts say.)

There hard to find on my phone, I can't use my computers at night.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw this today and I was like.  hmmmm.  7000 people who didn't have to have it.
> "*More than 7,000 college-age people in Missouri have tested positive for the coronavirus since classes resumed in mid-August, fueling spikes in confirmed cases in the state’s college towns, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday.*" source: Parson: 7,000-plus Missouri college students test positive
> 
> 7000 new opportunities to spread the virus to someone else.



This article goes into, but it's only the NY Times.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.


----------



## Flying Crane

EdwardA said:


> Here's one article on the amplification cycles.
> 
> Coronavirus tests are extremely sensitive. (That could be a problem, experts say.)
> 
> There hard to find on my phone, I can't use my computers at night.


Interesting article, thank you.

Do you have a citation showing where Faucci demanded high amplification cycles in the face of knowing it was too many?


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.


That's not saying stuff on a whim. That's say stuff in the context of what is going on. 

Let's take a look at martial arts.
You and I spar and I notice that you have 2 patterns.  Every time  you do pattern A you follow up with 2 punches.   Every time you do pattern B you follow up with 1 punch and 1 kick.  

The next wee, you and I have a big fight against each other.  I get interviewed and they as me how I think things will go.   My response is.  If Edward continues to do pattern one, then I can expect 2 punches is the likely outcome.  But if I can switch my stance, I can  decrease the chance that Edward does  pattern A.   If I can do that then result is that Edward will have to rely on Pattern B.   If Edward does Pattern B then I can follow up with something different than what I would do to deal with pattern A.  

There's no one size fits all answer for me to give.  My answers and outcomes will change based on what you do.  

If people wear masks, then Fauci expects Outcome A, and as a result we can slow the rate of infection and the number of infections.  If we do that then we can reopen.   If people don't wear masks, then we can expect Outome B, and as a result we'll have to have another lockdown, and as a result C will happen.

Stuff that is done on a whim  has no reason nor purpose.  But people who deal with Pandemics have to run scenarios and they have to have an idea of where the paths of decisions will lead them.  They have factor a wide range of possibilities and how to navigate those possibilities.  This is why he rarely answers a question directly.  If you ask him how many people are expected to die this fall,  he would say "IF people do action A." then we'll see a reduction.   "If people do option B there will be an increase."

He can't choose how people will act.  He doesn't know how people will react.  Will most people wear masks, or will most people complain about it?   How many people in California will where the mask?  How many people will follow the rules about no large gathering of people? The only way to get a specific action is to control what people do and when they do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> This article goes into, but it's only the NY Times.
> 
> Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.



From your source as I understand it.
"*The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.*"  Testing has always been lacking as there as been a push not to use testing methods from other countries.   There has been a government push for the U.S. to create their own testing.  So that means we are doing things from scratch.  There is also a government push to not work together with other countries to fight the virus.

There is also no standard of what qualifies as "relatively insignificant amounts of the virus" is.

"Most of these people are not likely to be contagious"  Again.there's science  standard of when someone is contagious or not, which is why you.  Which is why people get automatically quarantined if they have been around someone who may have  COVID-19.  
"
This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

“It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added."

This is probably Dr. Fauci's view as well. It's the way that I think as well.  Not saying I'm smart like them.  But people are sick so it's better to get as much data while you can.  Being able to detect someone who Asymptomatic is probably more important if you are trying to contain and prevent the spread.  The idea way would be to do both, and try to figure out at what threshold someone is sick and what threshold identifies, asymptomatic and which identifies that they had it.  

There still is a lot to learn.  But this information would be important in answering questions like.  How long does it stay in the body.  Does it reactivate? Does it go dormant?  We  know very little about the virus so we need to data mine the heck out of it.

Just so you don't I'm way out there?

*Doctor's Note: Can the coronavirus reactivate?*
New research suggests the coronavirus may be able to lie dormant and later 'reawaken'. A doctor examines the evidence.  Source: Doctor's Note: Can the coronavirus reactivate?

"*Researchers suspect that, rather than these people having been reinfected, there may have been flaws in the testing process whereby low levels of the virus failed to be picked up when patients were discharged from the hospital*." <- another reason why you may want to have a sensitive test.

"*However, this latest data from the KCDC has thrown a new theory into the mix - that the virus can become dormant and, later, reactivate itself.

While our immune system is able to clear most pathogens, there are, indeed, some that lie dormant - "hidden" in our cells, not causing any illness.

The mechanism of reactivation occurs when that pathogen comes out of its sleeping phase and becomes active again, potentially replicating and spreading, causing illness*."


----------



## EdwardA

These are only a couple articles, out of no telling how many... can't find them on google, but you can find them on duckduckgo and a couple other search engines.  There is lots more coming out about this specific subject recently.  I find info about details on the CDC website too, and then it disappears.

Lots of people have a lot to say about the subject, but aren't doing the digging to find the info.  Admittedly, it's hard to find.

*Who told the labs to run 40 cycles instead of the 30 cycles recommend by the designers of the test?*

These two articles are fluffing the the real questions, but I only posted the two soft articles for a reason.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> These are only a couple articles, out of no telling how many... can't find them on google, but you can find them on duckduckgo and a couple other search engines.  There is lots more coming out about this specific subject recently.  I find info about details on the CDC website too, and then it disappears.
> 
> Lots of people have a lot to say about the subject, but aren't doing the digging to find the info.  Admittedly, it's hard to find.


You are right a lot of people don't dig around it.  But it helps to research this stuff.  There have been times where I have researched something and misunderstood what I was reading.  I don't think it was due to a lack of intelligence.  As far as I know it could have been my mood influencing my perception of what I was reading.  Or it could have been me just reading information without connecting it.  Like Steve's little math game.   I found that it was easy to understand when I read it with a business perspective than a math problem.   Reading it as a math problem got me into all sorts of trouble.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> These are only a couple articles, out of no telling how many... can't find them on google, but you can find them on duckduckgo and a couple other search engines.  There is lots more coming out about this specific subject recently.  I find info about details on the CDC website too, and then it disappears.
> 
> Lots of people have a lot to say about the subject, but aren't doing the digging to find the info.  Admittedly, it's hard to find.
> 
> *Who told the labs to run 40 cycles instead of the 30 cycles recommend by the designers of the test?*


 I wish I would have seen this earlier.  Because I came across an article where it was said that the testing manufacturers determine the cycle threshold.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> You are right a lot of people don't dig around it.  But it helps to research this stuff.  There have been times where I have researched something and misunderstood what I was reading.  I don't think it was due to a lack of intelligence.  As far as I know it could have been my mood influencing my perception of what I was reading.  Or it could have been me just reading information without connecting it.  Like Steve's little math game.   I found that it was easy to understand when I read it with a business perspective than a math problem.   Reading it as a math problem got me into all sorts of trouble.


Why's it gotta be a "little" math game?


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I wish I would have seen this earlier.  Because I came across an article where it was said that the testing manufacturers determine the cycle threshold.



Why would labs all over the country run up to 50 cycles until they found something.... anything?  It costs more money and takes more time.  The scientists that designed the test specified 20-30 cycles specifically to avoid errors.

By the way, I agree.  Research is time consuming...I get tired of it too.  My biggest problem is loosing links to this stuff.  That's frustrating.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Why's it gotta be a "little" math game?


That thing had me thinking I was crazy lol.  It gave me some insight on how may brain is wired.  When I looked at it as a math problem, I felt the need to use all the numbers.   When I looked at it as a business transaction, I only took what I needed.  When I looked at it as a math problem,  I felt like I was wrong and the numbers were right.  When I looked at it as a business transaction. I was like "dude your math is off.  How did you get that?"  


I enjoyed it though.  It highlighted something about me that I was unaware of, after which I felt the urge to send you some Woodland Candy.   lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Why would labs all over the country run up to 50 cycles until they found something.... anything?  It costs more money and takes more time.  The scientists that designed the test specified 20-30 cycles specifically to avoid errors.


I didn't see anything about 50 cycles.  I also couldn't tell  you why they would run them that high. They may have been collecting data.  For example, at which range is it present and at which range does it find nothing.  If you are providing data to the manufacturers who are developing the test, then that information would be vital to developing an accurate testing system.  A doctor may want to know that as well in hope that they can get an early jump on it." 

But that's just me guessing based off the Covid-19 testing manual I found online.  Stuff gets confusing: https://www.fda.gov/media/138150/download

*
But I found your answer* source: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

35 CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases Effective: 07/13/2020. If any of the above controls do not exhibit the expected performance as described, the assay may have been set up and/or executed improperly, or reagent or equipment malfunction could have occurred. Invalidate the run and re-test.RNase P (Extraction Control)  *All clinical samples should exhibit fluorescence growth curves in the RNase P reaction that cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct), thus indicating the presence of the human RNase P gene.* 

F*ailure to detect RNase P in any clinical specimens may indicate:*
−Improper extraction of nucleic acid from clinical materials resulting in loss of RNA and/or RNA degradation. 
−Absence of sufficient human cellular material due to poor collection or loss of specimen integrity.
−Improper assay set up and execution.
−Reagent or equipment malfunction.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I also found where the Manufacturers set the cycle.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
"
*The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.*


----------



## JowGaWolf

Some more information but I didn't read it.
*The importance of cycle threshold values in interpreting molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2*
*The importance of cycle threshold values in interpreting molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2*


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Why would labs all over the country run up to 50 cycles until they found something.... anything?  It costs more money and takes more time.  The scientists that designed the test specified 20-30 cycles specifically to avoid errors.
> 
> By the way, I agree.  Research is time consuming...I get tired of it too.  My biggest problem is loosing links to this stuff.  That's frustrating.


I bookmark mine, but I don't organize it so it looks like trash.  I'll probably never look at that site again. lol


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I bookmark mine, but I don't organize it so it looks like trash.  I'll probably never look at that site again. lol



I email some links to myself, and save some on my laptop....I can't use my laptop much at night because I'm off-grid and rely on batteries at night.  I've got 500 links to various things I'm researching...and don't organize them as well as I should.  Gee, I've still got a hundred links from putting a new engine and trans in my Acura last winter.  Those are well organized.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I also found where the Manufacturers set the cycle.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
> "
> *The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”
> 
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”
> 
> The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.*



Watch in the next few weeks, how much of a blame game it becomes.  The manufacturers are completely regulated by the cdc and fda.  There's a lot more of this issue being examined right now.  I've seen articles from the medical community saying that up to 90% of the tests may have been effected.  That's only a worse case senario, because it'll take all lot of time before they can come to a conclusion....if ever.  It's not like they can redo the tests.

There was a network of doctors that tried to bring up both, the testing and death certificate issues about 4 months ago.  The press wouldn't give them any air time, so they put it on youtube.  Google deleted their account.  Won't see any of this stuff on TV news.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess my computer is broken
> View attachment 23122





JowGaWolf said:


> Finally.  And it's  not irrelevant.  It's a FACT.   2+2=4.   If you are doing measurements of any type, then  the logic 2+2=10 is going cause you a lot problems.  In a lot of areas.  That's why I told you FACTS matter.  You can believe 2+2=10 all day long.  You can't get the entire world to believe it and the the only thing they will be is Wrong.
> 
> The whole world can believe in the Flat Earth Model  all they want, but when they start calculating other things then what they will discover is just a lot of wrong and impossibilities.  Facts Matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what type of math that you do.  2+2=4.  Such simple things are the foundation of advance mathematics. If 2+2 doesn't = 4 then there's a lot of advanced math and calculations that are going to be screwed.


0l


JowGaWolf said:


> Finally.  And it's  not irrelevant.  It's a FACT.   2+2=4.   If you are doing measurements of any type, then  the logic 2+2=10 is going cause you a lot problems.  In a lot of areas.  That's why I told you FACTS matter.  You can believe 2+2=10 all day long.  You can't get the entire world to believe it and the the only thing they will be is Wrong.
> 
> The whole world can believe in the Flat Earth Model  all they want, but when they start calculating other things then what they will discover is just a lot of wrong and impossibilities.  Facts Matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what type of math that you do.  2+2=4.  Such simple things are the foundation of advance mathematics. If 2+2 doesn't = 4 then there's a lot of advanced math and calculations that are going to be screwed.


im not the idiot whisperer,  if you want to be bady miss informed carry on


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Not really. Again you are suggesting that there is an onus on experts is to convince idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately the idiots don't make that possible.
> 
> Sorry can you please explain a concept that took you 4 years of specialized training to understand in about ten seconds?
> 
> I just have a really short attention span.
> 
> 
> 
> So for example.
> 
> "To come up with a proof of such a seemingly simple fact as 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, we need a set of axioms to start with, and we need precise definitions of all the terms we are using. Depending on what set of axioms you start with, proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, and that no other natural number can equal 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 may be either very simple or surprisingly difficult. For example in Russell and Whitehead's Principia, it famously took over 300 pages of work before they could prove that 1+1=2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1+1=21+1=2. They started with a very sparse set of axioms though.
> 
> The most common set of axioms for the natural numbers are the Peano Axioms.
> 
> They are
> 
> 
> 0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 is a natural number.
> For every natural number x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, x=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=xx=x.
> For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx and y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y, then y=x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=xy=x.
> For all natural numbers x" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">xx, y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">yy, and z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">zz, if x=y" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=yx=y and y=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">y=zy=z, then x=z" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=zx=z.
> For all a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa and b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb, if a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">aa is a natural number, and a=b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a=ba=b, then b" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">bb is a natural number.
> For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)S(n) is a natural number.
> For every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, S(n)=0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)=0S(n)=0 is false.
> For all natural numbers m" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">mm and n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, if S(m)=S(n)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(m)=S(n)S(m)=S(n) then m=n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">m=nm=n.
> If K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK is a set such that 0&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">0∈K0∈K, and for every natural number n" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">nn, n&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">n∈Kn∈K implies that S(n)&#x2208;K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(n)∈KS(n)∈K, then K" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">KK contains all natural numbers.
> Here S" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">SS is the successor function, it takes each natural number to its successor. This might seem like a complicated mess compared to the simplicity of natural numbers, but we need to be precise. We need to carefully construct the axioms so that no contradiction can be derived from them, and so they encapsulate what we understand to be the natural numbers. We want to be able to prove interesting statements about the natural numbers from them. Note that the axioms contain undefined terms. The axioms don't need to state what the terms mean, only what they do.
> 
> The following definitions are commonly used within this axiomatization. They are the definitions from Peano's original paper (An English translation is available in the book From Frege to Gödel), modified to start at 0" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">00 instead of 1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11.
> 
> 1" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">11 is defined as S(0)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(0)S(0), 2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">22 is defined as S(1)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(1)S(1), 3" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">33 is defined as S(2)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(2)S(2), and 4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">44 is defined as S(3)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S(3)S(3). Addition is defined recursively as follows.
> 
> 
> a+0=a" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+0=aa+0=a
> a+S(b)=S(a+b)" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">a+S(b)=S(a+b)a+S(b)=S(a+b)
> .
> 
> 
> Thus
> 
> 
> 2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; display: table-cell !important; width: 10000em !important;">2+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=42+2=2+S(1)=S(2+1)=S(2+S(0))=S(S(2+0))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4
> 
> 
> proving that 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4.
> 
> This is the unique value of 2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+22+2 by axiom 4.
> 
> If x=2+2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=2+2x=2+2 and 2+2=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2+2=42+2=4, then x=4" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">x=4x=4."



Your own codex or base packet?


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah.  What can I say.  I could have gone into more specifics and exceptions.  That just seemed too complicated.  Law is already complex enough as it is.  I try to keep it as simple as possible.  There's a disagreement on 2+2=4, so I fear being more accurate about a discussion on law would be too much lol.
> 
> Tell your wife that I suffered 2 years of  law classes with an attorney and I hated every minute of it.  Every answer my professor had was a legal one and it was like she didn't have feelings.  She was just straight to the point and very detailed.  If the students had to give a definition or explain a case and the ruling (hated that too) then nothing less than detailed answer was accepted.  It was like 2 years of being wrong, assumptions weren't allowed, emotions weren't allowed.  So I'm happy that she could have to good chuckle.


My wife a PD for the absolute minimum time required for TN. Two years if memory serves. Even in that short amount of time she has some sad stories about how the 'law' was/is manipulated. She is a specialized attorney doing contract and governmental law. 
She has made a similar comment to yours that legal definition is supposed to be absolute. Then you find out 98% of written law is done by defense attorney's. The reason? There is a loophole in almost every established law by design.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> It would be nice then I could argue with a lawyer lol.  But unfortunately simple doesn't cover all necessary aspect of a law. Make a simple law and the next thing that happens are "What abouts?" and "What ifs"   It's like a building a car with a person with never ending ideas of "wouldn't it be cool if we added..."


Well, you just described the world I live in. We literally have 'What If' and 'If Then' meetings, both with the client(s) and amongst ourselves. It can get a bit obsessive but is necessary, especially when building a totally new product. 
Damn hard to catch everything on the first iteration.

An example is the week I just had. We started up a sortation line that scans a barcode and another tag on a non-uniform and shiny part that weighs about 65lbs. The customer had been doing the scan by hands and had encountered strains and minor injuries so needed to automate the process. 
I met with the engineering group and production group  3 or 4 times to talk through the process and options on how to automate. Then spent over 60 hours watching the production operation to try to determine all the preventable issues. Plus it was a planned obsolescence project. 
We had to add a 3-axis robot. The base was built into the line and the code was already there. The customer had hoped we could locate the barcode without it but not possible to do reliably enough to pass certification. It was the first time in a long time we had to PPAT 3 times and certify twice. Just to be certain we went back yesterday and re-ran all the testing phases to satisfy everyone, including myself. 
That part was on my nickel. Four engineers, two techs, 10 hours each at overtime pay. You can do the math.

A Big part of the 'what if' of a project like this one is not being too specific about the 'what ifs' and building in modular flexibility. Had we not built in the base for the added robot we would have had a BIG problem on our hands. And it was essentially a case of the customer being certain "we can do it this way" and me having to convince them that I did not think so and that we must include the base and programing in the build. 

The 'what ifs' usually end at a practical and financial point.


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> well that doesnt prove anything, it totally dependent on the coubrobg system you use
> 
> growing up we use based 12 for money and distance and base 16 for weight,
> 
> the americand still do for weight and distance
> 
> in base two its 0100, in base 3 its 11, in base 4 its 10. in base 16 its one quarter or .25 as well as 4, but all answers are correct unless the question specifies which units should be used for the answer
> 
> it only becomes a fact if you prefix it with "" in the base 10 system"
> 
> so as i said that fact is total dependent on interpretation


It would definitely be a better and easier world if we all used the same standardized units.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> It would definitely be a better and easier world if we all used the same standardized units.


its nearly 50 years sibce the uk went metric, but it still runs substantially on imperial units
ask anyone what fuel economoy they get from there car and they answer almost with out exception in miles per gallon

or how tall they are or what they weigh or how long their todger is and they reply in imperial

then we have really bizare hybrids,  wood screws are metric in diamiter but imperial in lengh as for some reason are carpets, coke is in metric beer in pints,  tryibg to buy a pint of coke is throught with difficulty.

can i have a pint if coke please,

returns with class of coke

no a pint of coke

that is a pint of coje
.no its not its a half ltre class, i want a pint

bar staff look deeply confused


----------



## dvcochran

Bruce7 said:


> CB Jones
> All statements above are true.
> True, Sweden death total is 5, 835, that is less than 10,000. Total population 10,110,577.
> True, They also did not have the economic fallout, because they did very little to stop the spread of the virus.
> 
> *U.S is number 10 in the world for deaths per million, 588. in other words there are over 200 countries doing better than us.
> Sweden is number 11 in the world for deaths per million, 581. Total deaths 5,835 in country with 10,110,577 total population.
> Tiawan is 187 in the world for deaths per million, 0.3. Total deaths 7 in country with 23,824,604 total population. Twice the population of Sweden.
> 
> Looking at the numbers I prefer the Tiawan Model.*


Bruce7, I didn't check the numbers but they look right from memory. This is where the critical thinking has to take over. Factoring in the per capita values, average age, health system, etc... Sadly, I do believe there are political factors at play in our country as well.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Sure, but you also said that they did not experience the economic fallout.  Based on the context of your post (whether you intended it or not), it sounded very much as though you were suggesting some kind of causal relationship between avoiding shutting down and the economy.  (i.e., "Sure, more people died, but on the bright side, because they didn't shut down they didn't experience the same level of economic fallout.")  However, there does NOT appear to be a causal relationship between their economic resilience and their decision to avoid shutting down, because the two neighboring countries (Denmark and Norway) did shut down, and had similar economic impact without the unneeded deaths.
> 
> Simply put, yes, they did make mistakes and people died who didn't need to.  AND it doesn't appear so far that their economy benefited from it.


I agree, but especially with the amount of flux and unknowns early on with the virus it is very easy to pop shots, which is what a lot here are doing. Hindsight is always 20/20. 
There is still a ton of flux and unknown so I think it is fair to say no one knows for sure what to do.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> That makes sense and it sounds like something Dr. Fauci would say.
> 
> The whole face shield thing makes me think. "might as well have some fun with it".  Time to suit up lol. Make it out of some anti-viral materials, add a little ac and a filter, some heads up displays, and an audo /mic system and you'll be all set. lol



Have you seen any of the Purge movies? Makes me think of them. And how we are headed for that kind of anarchy.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> I couldn't find anywhere where people need a working knowledge of binary though.
> 
> Yeah know it exists but I don't think it ever gets used.


We still use it quite heavily when troubleshooting assembly language.


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> never used calculas then have you,


Use it quite often for interpolated motion control.


----------



## dvcochran

Bruce7 said:


> When I work for Schlumberger and Baker the Engineers and Scientist used computers to do the heavy lifting , programing a computer to do very compicated work
> requires the engineer to understand calculus. You have to have a true understanding of calculas as normal calculas formulas can not be programinto a computer.
> Most programers now days don't know *FORTRAN.* You could do it in *C *but I think it would be harder.


Oh how I do NOT miss Fortran.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw this today and I was like.  hmmmm.  7000 people who didn't have to have it.
> "*More than 7,000 college-age people in Missouri have tested positive for the coronavirus since classes resumed in mid-August, fueling spikes in confirmed cases in the state’s college towns, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday.*" source: Parson: 7,000-plus Missouri college students test positive
> 
> 7000 new opportunities to spread the virus to someone else.



So, what % of error in testing do you apply as inaccuracy in the total numbers being published? 
Here is my direct personal experience. Our 26 year old son (who had no symptoms)went to a walk-in/drive up test site. He tested positive after an 18 day wait for results. My wife (who had symptoms) went to her regular doctor and tested negative. even had the antibody test and it came back negative.  If it is passes from person to person in the fashion(s) claimed there is no way she would Not have gotten it from our son. We wrestle around with each other all the time. 
I paid $250 each for three of my engineers to have the rapid testing. All came back negative. Everyone else at work went to a walk-in/drive up test site (and different test sites) and ALL of them tested positive, again after waiting 17 days for the results. We never stopped working and nobody ever got sick. 
I am certain some if not much of the same thing is going on with the student testing. All testing for that matter. 
Yes, I think there is a Lot of BS going on.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Have you seen any of the Purge movies? Makes me think of them. And how we are headed for that kind of anarchy.


seen them all and quite enjoy them. Easy solution take a martial arts class of some sort MMA, Karate, whatever and do sparring at least once a week. Hit the bags or pads at least 2 times a week and all of that stress is gone lol.

But seriously things are bad but it's not the worst that we have had.   That's the gives me hope.  The other thing is the concept of balance which has become a really big part of my life lately.  All things typically try to maintain a balance, so no matter how crazy things get life will always see that balance.  The only "worry" is that there are many ways to balance things.   The big question is "Will life need humans to balance or will it need to get rid of humans in order to balance."    The thing about viruses (non-man-made) is that they do a really good job in balancing things out, and it's one of the things that has no problem working on a global scale

Things look like gloom and doom, but I can point to similar points in our past where we have gone through the same thing. The only real difference is the technology available and the amount of people.  Those are things that will either help fuel or decrease the tension.


----------



## EdwardA

drop bear said:


> Ok. So what do the other expert sources say?
> 
> Because that would be the sensible follow up there wouldn't it?



Anybody can spend tons of time looking for data, sources...but consider that the Mayo Clinic created the testing procedure.  They also transmitted the specs and procedures for the tests.  The CDC and FDA fully regulate the manufacturers.  So where and why did the specs of how many amplification cycles go?  I don't think the manufacturers of the test were told oh, do it however you want.  It's also states in the articles, the labs didn't transmit how many cycles they used.  How is that a question?  It means the cycles were varied, not regulated.  No set number of cycles.  Again, where'd the specs from the Mayo Clinic go?  None of them are going to say, we did that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> I don't think the manufacturers of the test were told oh, do it however you want.


There always needs to be some set of standards.  But according to what I posted from the CDC, the manufacturers determine how the test works and how many cycle counts to use.  In one of the quotes that I posted it mentioned that the CDC was talking with the manufacturers in order to determine what standard will be.  Once you have a standard then you can meet or exceed it as you please, so long as you don't go below it.

Standards are a good thing and it's always to have one organization that sets that for a specific "tool."  Be happy that the CDC and FDA exist.  Are they perfect? Of course not and they don't make that claim.  Do they make mistakes, yes. That's what humans do.  If you want to know what will happen without the CDC and FDA then look at the world and the problems they had before the CDC and FDA.   

But again as far as the cycles go the Manufacturers are determining that.   I rather live in a world of required standards than a world without them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> So, what % of error in testing do you apply as inaccuracy in the total numbers being published?


I'm not applying any % of error.  That's not for me to randomly apply.  You can't magically apply a percentage of error.  They only way you would even know that is if you test them again.  Again, back to the Cycles.  If the cycles don't read at a certain level, then errors occur.  I don't know and you don't know if the test were done correctly or not.  This is why we need standards.   So trying to apply inaccuracy about something that neither you and I aren't involved in, is just nuts.

The other you have to realize is that none of this stuff is going to work perfect "out of the box."  People still fail to realize that the US is still developing testing.  You deal with the numbers that you get with the testing that you have.  From there you try to improve the testing so that it's faster and more accurate.  That has always been the reality of Medical Testing.  It holds true for testing for Cancer.  It holds true for testing for testing for influenza,  it hold true for testing for blood sugar levels in diabetics.

This expectation that testing that didn't exist 9 months ago for a disease that didn't exist a year ago is just unrealistic. 



dvcochran said:


> Here is my direct personal experience. Our 26 year old son (who had no symptoms)went to a walk-in/drive up test site. He tested positive after an 18 day wait for results. My wife (who had symptoms) went to her regular doctor and tested negative. even had the antibody test and it came back negative. If it is passes from person to person in the fashion(s) claimed there is no way she would Not have gotten it from our son. We wrestle around with each other all the time.


 So you blame the test for this? Did you ever ask yourself these questions?
1. Did the samples get mixed up
2. Was the testing done properly according to the instructions set by the manufacturer?
3. Where the samples handled properly?

All of these 3 things could be why your son tested differently at no fault of the test.  All of these things are realistic and actually occur not only in this testing but also in other types of testing.  But your first reaction is that the test is crap because your son tested positive and your wife did not.  Have you ever heard of people going to a doctor to get a second and third opinion, because one doctor say one thing and another doctor say something else?  

For people who have never had to create a medical test, you guys sure act like you are an expert on it.  It wasn't until last night that I knew why the cycle were set at 40.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Lets view the value of standards on a lower and less complex level by viewing martial arts.   We have seen martial arts schools who follow a standard for that specific school. But there are no global board that regulates Martial Arts Standards.  Schools that tend to do well are those who follow standards throughout the organization.  So every school that is part of that organization has to operate with a certain set of standards. 

Anything that operates below that standard will be the schools that struggle.  This doesn't mean your martial arts sucks. It may mean that you didn't pick the standard for finding a location to operate in.

Now there will be schools that have no standards in common with other martial arts systems.  Schools like the Yellow Bamboo do not use Martial Arts standards which is why this stuff happens.





For me personally I think ALL MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL would benefit if they had One organizations that could set some general standards for a martial arts school.  This could easily be done by taking a look at Successful martial arts schools and classify them into 3 different groups.  Mental Health,  Combat, Physical Exercise and Sport.  or something similar.
From there based on schools that produce high quality in these.  Anyone opening a school would have to meet some common standards.   For example,  One could not claim to be a Martial Arts self-defense school if there is not a certain intensity level of sparring involved, that is beyond no touch sparring, and tap sparring.  This standard would allow school to meet that standard or exceed it.  If the school fails to keep up with that standard then they lose the certification.

Right now there's no such standard for martial arts as a whole.  Which is why we end up with this





For all fighting sports there are common standard required for fighting no matter what the system is.   But those are just natural standards and not standards required by an organization. Once school has been identified by the organization then it becomes easier to know which school will help you reach a specific goal.  No more wondering if a martial arts school can help you learn how to fight with the system or use it as self defense.   

Standards matter.  FDA sets food and drug standards by insuring that a wide variety of foods and drugs meet a common level of quality. (Note: when I say common level of quality.  I'm referring to a common level of quality of what they are inspecting.)


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> We still use it quite heavily when troubleshooting assembly language.



And so if I Translated 2+2=4 in to binary. Would it still work?

Or do the results change?


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> There always needs to be some set of standards.  But according to what I posted from the CDC, the manufacturers determine how the test works and how many cycle counts to use.  In one of the quotes that I posted it mentioned that the CDC was talking with the manufacturers in order to determine what standard will be.  Once you have a standard then you can meet or exceed it as you please, so long as you don't go below it.
> 
> Standards are a good thing and it's always to have one organization that sets that for a specific "tool."  Be happy that the CDC and FDA exist.  Are they perfect? Of course not and they don't make that claim.  Do they make mistakes, yes. That's what humans do.  If you want to know what will happen without the CDC and FDA then look at the world and the problems they had before the CDC and FDA.
> 
> But again as far as the cycles go the Manufacturers are determining that.   I rather live in a world of required standards than a world without them.



The two articles I posted were very easy on the issue.  In the same search I found more articles that were much tougher....at pointing out the errors.  I did that on purpose.

Either way nobody's going to know how much error there has been, for some time.... considering right now, some "experts" are trying to uncover what other "experts" did or didn't do.  It's not going to be easy to find out.  The one thing that is known, from before it was being investigated...was that many labs being surveyed, admitted running up to 50+ cycles.  Now nobody wants to say anything.  Like I said earlier, the blame game is beginning.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> And so if I Translated 2+2=4 in to binary. Would it still work?
> 
> Or do the results change?


Yes it would work; just a different number system. The kind the computer understands. Binary is incredibly compact and efficient  in terms of memory allocation.


----------



## dvcochran

EdwardA said:


> The two articles I posted were very easy on the issue.  In the same search I found more articles that were much tougher....at pointing out the errors.  I did that on purpose.
> 
> Either way nobody's going to know how much error there has been, for some time.... considering right now, some "experts" are trying to uncover what other "experts" did or didn't do.  It's not going to be easy to find out.  The one thing that is known, from before it was being investigated...was that many labs being surveyed, admitted running up to 50+ cycles.  Now nobody wants to say anything.  Like I said earlier, the blame game is beginning.


Agree. There is already a great amount of lost data I am afraid. So much of the more common illness data has been wrapped up into the numbers. And let's not forget the financial advantage for hospitals to include C-19 in a diagnosis. I do not see how the numbers will ever be accurate.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not applying any % of error.  That's not for me to randomly apply.  You can't magically apply a percentage of error.  They only way you would even know that is if you test them again.  Again, back to the Cycles.  If the cycles don't read at a certain level, then errors occur.  I don't know and you don't know if the test were done correctly or not.  This is why we need standards.   So trying to apply inaccuracy about something that neither you and I aren't involved in, is just nuts.
> 
> The other you have to realize is that none of this stuff is going to work perfect "out of the box."  People still fail to realize that the US is still developing testing.  You deal with the numbers that you get with the testing that you have.  From there you try to improve the testing so that it's faster and more accurate.  That has always been the reality of Medical Testing.  It holds true for testing for Cancer.  It holds true for testing for testing for influenza,  it hold true for testing for blood sugar levels in diabetics.
> 
> This expectation that testing that didn't exist 9 months ago for a disease that didn't exist a year ago is just unrealistic.
> 
> So you blame the test for this? Did you ever ask yourself these questions?
> 1. Did the samples get mixed up
> 2. Was the testing done properly according to the instructions set by the manufacturer?
> 3. Where the samples handled properly?
> 
> All of these 3 things could be why your son tested differently at no fault of the test.  All of these things are realistic and actually occur not only in this testing but also in other types of testing.  But your first reaction is that the test is crap because your son tested positive and your wife did not.  Have you ever heard of people going to a doctor to get a second and third opinion, because one doctor say one thing and another doctor say something else?
> 
> For people who have never had to create a medical test, you guys sure act like you are an expert on it.  It wasn't until last night that I knew why the cycle were set at 40.



You have talked in circles this whole thread. In the same post you saying we, as layman, are not supposed to understand or know anything about what is going on. Then in the same post you question the very process you are trying, and failing, to uphold. 
C'mon man. Get on one side of the fence and have the balls to stay there. 

What was the point of my testing? I had 3 engineers that had to be at a customer location early on back in May for extended periods and the customer asked me if they had been tested. 
As far as my family I imagine it was no different from anyone else who has been tested. 
But that is not good enough for you. Now you are huffing and puffing the WE were supposed to somehow determine the samples were mixed up or did not get handled properly or even that the test was not done properly? How the hell would ANYONE be able to find out this information? 
If you had read the post you would have seen my wife also had the antibody test, so there is your second opinion. 

I am not explicitly claiming anything. Just stating my personal experience. Instead of just popping shots at everything others have written. It lessons any credibility you may have had on the subject when you keep jumping back and forth over the fence, claiming everything is going along as it should one time , then feebly trying to explain why some things are not working.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Watch in the next few weeks, how much of a blame game it becomes.  The manufacturers are completely regulated by the cdc and fda.  There's a lot more of this issue being examined right now.  I've seen articles from the medical community saying that up to 90% of the tests may have been effected.  That's only a worse case senario, because it'll take all lot of time before they can come to a conclusion....if ever.  It's not like they can redo the tests.
> 
> There was a network of doctors that tried to bring up both, the testing and death certificate issues about 4 months ago.  The press wouldn't give them any air time, so they put it on youtube.  Google deleted their account.  Won't see any of this stuff on TV news.


The CDC and the FDA have been politicized undermining public trust in their processes.  Regarding the death certificates, it was literally not news to anyone who isn't inclined to conspiracy theories.  


dvcochran said:


> Agree. There is already a great amount of lost data I am afraid. So much of the more common illness data has been wrapped up into the numbers. And let's not forget the financial advantage for hospitals to include C-19 in a diagnosis. I do not see how the numbers will ever be accurate.


totally agree.  We should have a single payer system. A profit driven health system is immoral and ripe with corruption.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> The CDC and the FDA have been politic
> totally agree.  We should have a single payer system. A profit driven health system is immoral and ripe with corruption.


No surprise you think that way.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> No surprise you think that way.


I agree. It's funny to me that you articulate inherent problems with a "for profit l" health care system and then say things like this.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I agree. It's funny to me that you articulate inherent problems with a "for profit l" health care system and then say things like this.


You think socialism is for profit?


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> You think socialism is for profit?


Errr...  you’re not reading for comprehension again.   I’ll say it slower.  A... “for profit”... healthcare system... is... immoral.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Errr...  you’re not reading for comprehension again.   I’ll say it slower.  A... “for profit”... healthcare system... is... immoral.


I am working right now and don't have the time to get into it with you. I will just say your history proves you always have a motive with a comment like that. I will make one attempt with a link; but you will interpret it wrong and twist it anyway. 
Ethical Issues in For-Profit Health Care - For-Profit Enterprise in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Errr...  you’re not reading for comprehension again.   I’ll say it slower.  A... “for profit”... healthcare system... is... immoral.


i think he is saying that the american health care sysyem is socialist


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> I am working right now and don't have the time to get into it with you. I will just say your history proves you always have a motive with a comment like that. I will make one attempt with a link; but you will interpret it wrong and twist it anyway.
> Ethical Issues in For-Profit Health Care - For-Profit Enterprise in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf


not for profit organisations can still be outragiously expensive,  a socalist ist system would have all care free at the point of use

that is no matter how poor or rich you are every one gets the same care, paid for though taxation of the rich.

from your bragging in past threads that appears to be you


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> And let's not forget the financial advantage for hospitals to include C-19 in a diagnosis.


I'm not sure about this one.  I don't think there is much of a financial advantage in this area.  Hospitals were already running on tight budgets before Covid-19.  I can only image that it's getting worst.  So Looked it up


This report attempts to quantify these effects over the short-term, which are limited to the impacts over a four-month period from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. Based on these analyses, the AHA estimates a *total four-month financial impact of $202.6 billion* in losses for America’s hospitals and health systems, or an average of *$50.7 billion per month*. Source: Hospitals and Health Systems Face Unprecedented Financial Pressures Due to COVID-19 | AHA


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I am working right now and don't have the time to get into it with you. I will just say your history proves you always have a motive with a comment like that. I will make one attempt with a link; but you will interpret it wrong and twist it anyway.
> Ethical Issues in For-Profit Health Care - For-Profit Enterprise in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf


Why on earth are you talking about "getting into it"?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> i think he is saying that the american health care sysyem is socialist


I honestly don't know what he's saying.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> In the same post you saying we, as layman, are not supposed to understand or know anything about what is going on. Then in the same post you question the very process you are trying, and failing, to uphold.
> C'mon man. Get on one side of the fence and have the balls to stay there.


When I post, I sometimes share my initial thoughts about a subject.  Mainly because, I type those thoughts first and then figure that I better look it up and I end up including the source that I found.   The stuff that we don't understand is the stuff that we don't study or have any expertise in.  So the best you can do is use the information that you either find or get straight from the source.  If you aren't getting any information at all, then the best that you can do is a guess.

How many of us have hands on experience for creating test to detect viruses, then on top of that how many are involved in creating the tests for COVID-19.  So unless we are are in that same boat, our understanding is going to be very limited.  Again.  How many of us study or have any experience in identifying viruses and tracking virus mutations?  So unless you are getting some good information, there is very little we are going to understand.

For example,  tell me how virus testing is created and what elements do you look for when testing for a specific virus?  Do you use a certain chemical to detect it or is it completely biological.   What's the average cycle threshold for detecting viruses?  If there's no average then what cycle ranges to we look for? If you know the answer to stuff like this then have at it. Share your knowledge.  If you don't know stuff like this then you are either going to guess, or post source link.  Which is what I do.  If you got a problem with what I post then read the source links that I posted then give your opinion about that information on the page.  

Here's some perspective about things and people who complain about Corona Virus Accuracy
"*South Korea took a risk, releasing briskly vetted tests, then circling back later to spot check their effectiveness. By contrast, the United States’ FDA said it wanted to ensure, upfront, that the tests were accurate before they went out to millions of Americans.*"
Source: Special Report: How Korea trounced U.S. in race to test people for coronavirus



dvcochran said:


> As far as my family I imagine it was no different from anyone else who has been tested.
> But that is not good enough for you. Now you are huffing and puffing the WE were supposed to somehow determine the samples were mixed up or did not get handled properly or even that the test was not done properly? How the hell would ANYONE be able to find out this information?


  That's what I'm telling you.  So before you start saying that your Family's test was flaw and that the testing is no good.  Keep in mind that there are other things that could cause an inaccurate test other than a Crappy testing method. I literally just posted COVID-19 Testing documentation from a company that says that the testing as to be at 40 cycles, because of the test is looking for a specific thing, that's not COVID-19.  They said if you don't see it then the test will most likely be inaccurate.  Look at the link man.  That's why I posted it, now you are are going to have a fit with me because of what a COVID-19 manufacturer posted in their Testing documentation.  If you don't like it take it up with them, since you know better than they do.  



dvcochran said:


> It lessons any credibility you may have had on the subject when you keep jumping back and forth over the fence, claiming everything is going along as it should one time , then feebly trying to explain why some things are not working.


Dude I don't have any credibility on this stuff.  Never said I did.  That's why I post links from sources who do have credibility.  If you don't believe me on this stuff, read the source.  That's why I post. So you can read it and post your own thoughts.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FYI  For all of you who think I have credibility on COVI-19.  I just want to let you know.  I'm not an epidemiologist.  I don't study viruses.  I don't fight on the front line of the COVID-19.  I don't work in a hospital and take care of COVID-19 patients.  I don't manufacture nor develop testing for viruses. My college degree is in business and not medicine.  I don't have a bachelors, masters. or doctorate degree in medicine.

I HAVE NO CREDIBILITY ON COVID-19 WHICH IS WHY I POST LINKS FROM SOURCES THAT DO HAVE CREDIBILITY.   So if you are in the same boat that I'm in, then YOU DON'T HAVE CREDIBILITY.  If you don't read material from CREDIBLE SOURCES then don't get mad at me when I do and give my thoughts about it.  Read some of these links learn something, then post your thoughts based on what you read.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> i think he is saying that the american health care sysyem is socialist


I can't tell if we agree on single payer or not.  Read the article he posted and it just reinforces a lot of what I've been saying for years.  


JowGaWolf said:


> FYI  For all of you who think I have credibility on COVI-19.  I just want to let you know.  I'm not an epidemiologist.  I don't study viruses.  I don't fight on the front line of the COVID-19.  I don't work in a hospital and take care of COVID-19 patients.  I don't manufacture nor develop testing for viruses. My college degree is in business and not medicine.  I don't have a bachelors, masters. or doctorate degree in medicine.
> 
> I HAVE NO CREDIBILITY ON COVID-19 WHICH IS WHY I POST LINKS FROM SOURCES THAT DO HAVE CREDIBILITY.   So if you are in the same boat that I'm in, then YOU DON'T HAVE CREDIBILITY.  If you don't read material from CREDIBLE SOURCES then don't get mad at me when I do and give my thoughts about it.  Read some of these links learn something, then post your thoughts based on what you read.


Well said.  And why I'm very skeptical of folks who pass along BS and then say, "I'm not doing the research for you. Look it up yourself."  We should all be showing our work, so that everyone can judge for themselves the credibility of the source information.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Things that affect the accuracy of COVID-19 TESTING
Prior to looking at COVID-19 Testing documentation, I didn't think much about the accuracy of the testing being the hardware.  It wasn't until I read the documentation that I was surprised at how many things could actually affect the test.

These are just a few things that may affect the accuracy of COVID-19 TESTING.  Some of these will apply to all testing while other's will only apply to a specific Manufacturer's test.  I highlighted the type of test in Bold Blue

*ID NOW COVID-19 *source: https://www.fda.gov/media/136525/download
"SPECIMEN COLLECTION AND HANDLINGUse freshly collected specimens for optimal test performance. Inadequate specimen collection or improper sample handling/storage/transport may yield erroneous results. Refer to the CDC Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens from Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.htm."  (<-THIS LINK HAS NO DATA BUT IS PART OF THE QUOTE.) I may try to see if there is a old copy of that page on the web if I get really curious about it.

IMPORTANT: *" Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses*. "

Changed my mind halfway through, but left part of the original post because it refers to the "Awesome" test that Trump talks about.  ID NOW COVID-19 test is A coronavirus test made by Abbott Laboratories (NOT FDA, NOT CDC). You can go this website to see trump holding showing it. https://khn.org/news/trump-touted-abbotts-quick-covid-19-test-hhs-document-shows-only-5500-are-on-way-for-entire-u-s/


National Geographic Magazine has it's own thoughts on why the Coronavirus testing failures were bound to happend.

*Why the U.S. coronavirus testing failures were inevitable*
*Years of underfunding and a crucial laboratory mistake led to weeks of delay—and the virus’s undetected spread.*
source: Why the U.S. coronavirus testing failures were inevitable

"The delays in part result from design flaws with the early diagnostic tests developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

At the same time, those CDC errors have exposed other shortcomings in the nation's capacity for diagnostic testing that existed years before the novel coronavirus emerged in China, according to Catharina Boehme,  (link to her twitter posts) the CEO of Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), a medical nonprofit based in Geneva, Switzerland." 

"Since 2006, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which is a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for so-called rapid-response platforms—initiatives intended to develop technology at a fast pace when an outbreak emerges. These funds were directed primarily toward the development of therapeutic treatments and vaccines rather than creating diagnostic methods for new threats or increasing the volume of tests the system could perform. As a result, Boehme says, test development has lagged behind efforts to bring new vaccines to clinical trials"

"

Testing has also been hampered by shortages of vital components, including the chemical solution used to extract genetic material from clinical samples, the machines needed to run the test, and the swabs used to collect the samples, according to a statement released by the American Society for Microbiology.

Commercial and university laboratories rushed to fill the gap. Many of them, especially larger companies such as LabCorp and Roche, now use a similar but improved version of the CDC’s testing technique. Smaller labs such as Mammoth Biosciences and Sherlock Biosciences have gotten more creative, developing tests using CRISPR, a promising gene-editing technology. Multiple startups have also developed a collection of at-home tests, but doctors and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have warned against their use, in part because self-administering a nasal swab is difficult and could cause injury. Also, a poorly-executed swab could lead to a negative result when a person is actually infected"

The article continues and goes into 

*The problem with primers 
Rigid rules
*
I haven't read more than what I posted here.due to limited time. Gotta create some email newsletter templates for a Church that I provide website services to.   I would also recommend doing a couple of searches about labs that were caught or accused of improper Testing and lab procedures.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Well said. And why I'm very skeptical of folks who pass along BS and then say, "I'm not doing the research for you. Look it up yourself." We should all be showing our work, so that everyone can judge for themselves the credibility of the source information.


Especially with this and how many of us, including me, have been put into the habit of jumping to conclusion without information.  I blame Facebook that.  I even find myself seeing a headline and not thinking beyond that headline.  I've been doing better than I have in the past.  But it kind of creeps up on me from time to time.

My biggest fear is that most people don't do this and will believe anything without thinking.  That makes it very easy to manipulate people.  I'm afraid that the U.S. society as a whole is like this and as a result, it's going to be easy to steer the country in the wrong direction.  For example,  how many people think COVID-19 is a hoax.  It's not just in the US, it's also happening in other countries.  I think the only way to really combat stuff like that is to post Sources and to not let the BS slide.  

If I say some BS I hope someone lets me know and then posts a link to a source so I can correct my thinking.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> When I post, I sometimes share my initial thoughts about a subject.  Mainly because, I type those thoughts first and then figure that I better look it up and I end up including the source that I found.   The stuff that we don't understand is the stuff that we don't study or have any expertise in.  So the best you can do is use the information that you either find or get straight from the source.  If you aren't getting any information at all, then the best that you can do is a guess.
> 
> How many of us have hands on experience for creating test to detect viruses, then on top of that how many are involved in creating the tests for COVID-19.  So unless we are are in that same boat, our understanding is going to be very limited.  Again.  How many of us study or have any experience in identifying viruses and tracking virus mutations?  So unless you are getting some good information, there is very little we are going to understand.
> 
> For example,  tell me how virus testing is created and what elements do you look for when testing for a specific virus?  Do you use a certain chemical to detect it or is it completely biological.   What's the average cycle threshold for detecting viruses?  If there's no average then what cycle ranges to we look for? If you know the answer to stuff like this then have at it. Share your knowledge.  If you don't know stuff like this then you are either going to guess, or post source link.  Which is what I do.  If you got a problem with what I post then read the source links that I posted then give your opinion about that information on the page.
> 
> Here's some perspective about things and people who complain about Corona Virus Accuracy
> "*South Korea took a risk, releasing briskly vetted tests, then circling back later to spot check their effectiveness. By contrast, the United States’ FDA said it wanted to ensure, upfront, that the tests were accurate before they went out to millions of Americans.*"
> Source: Special Report: How Korea trounced U.S. in race to test people for coronavirus
> 
> That's what I'm telling you.  So before you start saying that your Family's test was flaw and that the testing is no good.  Keep in mind that there are other things that could cause an inaccurate test other than a Crappy testing method. I literally just posted COVID-19 Testing documentation from a company that says that the testing as to be at 40 cycles, because of the test is looking for a specific thing, that's not COVID-19.  They said if you don't see it then the test will most likely be inaccurate.  Look at the link man.  That's why I posted it, now you are are going to have a fit with me because of what a COVID-19 manufacturer posted in their Testing documentation.  If you don't like it take it up with them, since you know better than they do.
> 
> Dude I don't have any credibility on this stuff.  Never said I did.  That's why I post links from sources who do have credibility.  If you don't believe me on this stuff, read the source.  That's why I post. So you can read it and post your own thoughts.



Fair enough. I told you my experience with testing 17 people. You just made up reasons why it could be inaccurate because you want to believe it is much worse that my experience with the virus and subsequent testing. I have real world, working world experience for the sources closest to me. I cannot do any better than that. With the exception of my son's positive test I believe they were all accurate. The surrounding results of no one in contact with these 17 people contracting the virus it more proof. 
Your dogged research is proof positive that you, like others on here, are seeking for confirmation and buying into the things you read. online. You have little to no first hand experience. 
And before you say it; Yes, I know people who have been sick from the virus and some that have passed, one being a 2 year old who already had complications


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I can't tell if we agree on single payer or not.  Read the article he posted and it just reinforces a lot of what I've been saying for years.
> 
> Well said.  And why I'm very skeptical of folks who pass along BS and then say, "I'm not doing the research for you. Look it up yourself."  We should all be showing our work, so that everyone can judge for themselves the credibility of the source information.


Another cogent reason I do not post links. What is the point when you already have your mind made up?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I honestly don't know what he's saying.


I expected blowback. Single payer system is analogous with socialism.

Definition of single payer healthcare:
Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare in which the costs of essential healthcare for all residents are *covered by a single public system*. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel.

Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse. Do your homework.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure about this one.  I don't think there is much of a financial advantage in this area.  Hospitals were already running on tight budgets before Covid-19.  I can only image that it's getting worst.  So Looked it up
> 
> 
> This report attempts to quantify these effects over the short-term, which are limited to the impacts over a four-month period from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. Based on these analyses, the AHA estimates a *total four-month financial impact of $202.6 billion* in losses for America’s hospitals and health systems, or an average of *$50.7 billion per month*. Source: Hospitals and Health Systems Face Unprecedented Financial Pressures Due to COVID-19 | AHA



The best I can do right now. 
Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> not for profit organisations can still be outragiously expensive,  a socalist ist system would have all care free at the point of use
> 
> that is no matter how poor or rich you are every one gets the same care, paid for though taxation of the rich.
> 
> from your bragging in past threads that appears to be you


So how long would you have to wait for an elective procedure under you system?


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> i think he is saying that the american health care sysyem is socialist


No, and I don't want it to be. I want it to be a totally privatized system. But that will never happen.


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> So how long would you have to wait for an elective procedure under you system?


its based on need, urgent care comes instantly , less urgent, a month or two, well before the lock down, god knows what it is now.

the guy a few doors up went to the docs on a wed, had a heart bypass on the Thursday


----------



## EdwardA

Yep, now there's ads for face shields on tv.


----------



## jobo

it was oretty dire a coupke of decades ago, 8 month waiting lists and the like, but thats lobg gone

there is of course private health care here as well, but they only want to do, min9r surgery,  anything like a heart bypass and yoyr back on the nhs

i went private with my sliped disc back in the 90s, after being told it was 8 mobths to even see soneone.

he took my consultation fee, which id been told to bribk in cash, and imdiatly refered me to the consult at the nhs hospital, for imediate operation,  he consult i was seeing and the cobsultant he refered me to were one and the same person, just he was now 500 quid richer


----------



## dvcochran

jobo said:


> its based on need, urgent care comes instantly , less urgent, a month or two, well before the lock down, god knows what it is now.
> 
> the guy a few doors up went to the docs on a wed, had a heart bypass on the Thursday


Lets say you needed a knee replacement or wanted a face lift?


----------



## jobo

dvcochran said:


> Lets say you needed a knee replacement or wanted a face lift?


if you want a face lift irs private only, cosmetic sugary following an acident is available, knee surgury you can go private,  no one is stopping you payibg if you want to, on the nhs, depends how bad you injury is, for sonethibg thats stoppibg you from walking,  less than a month, certaibly no more than 6 weeks, if its just stoppibg you playing foot ball, a while longer, they have to sort out all the,serioys cases before irs yoyr turn


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> Another cogent reason I do not post links. What is the point when you already have your mind made up?


The person you are talking to may have made up their mind but there are other people who read the post who may be interested.  For me, when I post links it's so other people can read for themselves.  Seriously, I wouldn't waste time trying to get one person to see my point of view.  But everything that we post here is public and other people read it. Other people may be interested.

I keep in mind that other people may read what we post so I try to be responsible as I can with certain subject matters.  I rather that people have links to sources so they can read it for themselves.  There been times where I've had discussions outside of Martial Talk and have supplied links from here.

I actually read the links that people post.  Sometimes I misunderstand what people are trying to say and the link is the thing that clears it up for me.


----------



## Bruce7

dvcochran said:


> Agree. There is already a great amount of lost data I am afraid. So much of the more common illness data has been wrapped up into the numbers. And let's not forget the financial advantage for hospitals to include C-19 in a diagnosis. I do not see how the numbers will ever be accurate.


I do not wish to disagree with you. Hospitals break even or lose money on C-19 cases. They can not do option surgery so hospitals are losing money. Your logic has gone out the window.


----------



## EdwardA

Bruce7 said:


> I do not wish to disagree with you. Hospitals break even or lose money on C-19 cases. They can not do option surgery so hospitals are losing money. Your logic has gone out the window.



In the US, every hospital gets $16,000 from the Federal Gov. for every Covid case they admtt.....over and above insurance, State and County funding.  Whether or not it's severe.  They could be admitted for a few hours, as long as they're diagnosed and admitted. They get the money.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> The best I can do right now.
> Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients


Thanks for the link.  I really appreciate it.  I'm reading it right after I post this .


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for the link.  I really appreciate it.  I'm reading it right after I post this .



I heard 16k without the ventalator...from two separate sources last week.  They could've been in error, or it's changed.  The posted link story has no date...that's why I try and check several sources.  I don't always have the time tho...

The hospitals are getting extra money for covid cases.

I'll say again, some these thing are harder to find on google, I regularly use three or four search engines.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> The best I can do right now.
> Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients


Kind of typing my response as I'm reading the article.  Just some thoughts passing.  If I don't type it I'll forget.  So halfway through the article it looks COVID-19 financial support was rushed for good reasons.  The US has had 189,000 deaths due to COVID-19.   We weren't ready.  It was either pay or not pay to try to save people lives. Kind of the Catch 22.  But anyway half way in the article was this.

"Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted, "*Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media.*"

Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "*Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting.*""  I can understand why it would cost more money to treat COVID-19.  It's a new virus with no standard treatment.  Treating the systems the way that you would normally treat them was actually making things worse. 

So the questions becomes, "*How much does it cost to treat an unknown disease that became a Pandameic?*"   What is the price tag that you would put on the effort to try to stop a pandemic?  Do you stop trying when you hit $50,000 for the patient.  How much does it cost to treat a COVID-19 patient with no previous information to go on?   I know doctors like money but I think many of them would prefer the glory of being the doctor that contributed to the cure.  


So I continued reading and they state that hospitals do get paid more for Treating Covid-19. But it's not a conspiracy or bad business.  To sum it up:  It just cost More to Treat a person with COVID-19 than it does to treat someone without it.  Below is what was also on the same page you showed.

"*We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE*.
*
Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.*

This higher allocation of funds has been made possible under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act through a Medicare 20% add-on to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients, as verified by USA TODAY through the American Hospital Association Special Bulletin on the topic."


I'm not sure how you read this, but what I read seems normal.   COVID-19 is not the flu.  Different measures must be taken in order to deal with COVID-19. There are different costs associated with COVID-19 that you don't have when treating things like the flu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> In the US, every hospital gets $16,000 from the Federal Gov. for every Covid case they admtt.....over and above insurance, State and County funding.  Whether or not it's severe.  They could be admitted for a few hours, as long as they're diagnosed and admitted. They get the money.


source please-- Nevermind I read your second post.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Another cogent reason I do not post links. What is the point when you already have your mind made up?


Come on.  You're so disingenuous.  I read the article and it either doesn't say what you think it says, or you agree with me that a "for profit" healthcare system is a very bad idea. 

I think single-payer is an excellent idea.  Serious question.  Did you read the article you posted?   Yes or no.


dvcochran said:


> I expected blowback. Single payer system is analogous with socialism.
> 
> Definition of single payer healthcare:
> Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare in which the costs of essential healthcare for all residents are *covered by a single public system*. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel.
> 
> Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse. Do your homework.


I really don't understand what you're referring to by "blowback."  I mean, you posted two things that seem incongruous, and you're saying good things as though they are bad things.  A single payer system would be awesome for the country.  Well, it would be awesome for the patients.  it would be terrible for all of the money-grubbers who have their hands in the pot.

I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect health care system, but to fix the grift in our system and ensure everyone can get the care we need, we have to do at least 3 things:  1:  Get profit out of the equation.  It's immoral.  2:  Control the outrageous costs and create a consistent payment schedule.  At this point, the costs are hidden, are very arbitrary (and can vary wildly from facility to facility) and often patients have no choice where they get their care.  3:  Related to the last is the illusion of choice.  We have very few choices, and sometimes, even when we can exercise some choices, we are still screwed.

While single payer doesn't fix every problem within the medical system, it can fix every one of those things.  It would eliminate the intentional confusion around billing.  There would be no more "out of network" expenses.  It would decouple healthcare from employment, freeing folks to take more entrepreneurial risk.  It would save families from losing their retirement accounts and homes in order to pay for medical expenses.  Everyone would be covered. 

And all that said, I think America could come up with a great system.  We have pretty much every other wealthy, industrialized nation in the world to look at for inspiration.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> The person you are talking to may have made up their mind but there are other people who read the post who may be interested.  For me, when I post links it's so other people can read for themselves.  Seriously, I wouldn't waste time trying to get one person to see my point of view.  But everything that we post here is public and other people read it. Other people may be interested.
> 
> I keep in mind that other people may read what we post so I try to be responsible as I can with certain subject matters.  I rather that people have links to sources so they can read it for themselves.  There been times where I've had discussions outside of Martial Talk and have supplied links from here.
> 
> I actually read the links that people post.  Sometimes I misunderstand what people are trying to say and the link is the thing that clears it up for me.


For whatever record we're creating here, I'm pretty well convinced on the subject of health care, but that's after working with the system in different ways and doing a lot of research over 25 years.  I'm not a zealot, but I'm pretty well educated on the subject, and my position is pretty well fixed at this point.

And, I read the article and will try to read anything anyone shares and give it some thought.  In this case, dude posted a link that appears to contradict his stated position.  I'm still confused by that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> I heard 16k without the ventalator...from two separate sources last week.  They could've been in error, or it's changed.  The posted link story has no date...that's why I try and check several sources.  I don't always have the time tho...
> 
> The hospitals are getting extra money for covid cases.
> 
> I'll say again, some these thing are harder to find on google, I regularly use three or four search engines.


It's not hard for me to find things on the Internet, but I think that's because I spent 4 years doing internet research for weekly research papers that I was responsible for.

"COVID patients: hospitals get paid more, but it's complicated
*Are hospitals paid more to care for coronavirus patients? (Aug.3, 2020)*

"Yes, hospitals get an additional 20% for Medicare patients treated for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.* But there's more to the story behind this temporary reimbursement."*

*"The higher Medicare rate stirred controversy in April after Republican Sen. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota doctor, speculated on Fox News that the additional money might inspire hospital administrators to make it look like routine pneumonia cases were COVID-19 cases."*

*"Months later, though, the higher payouts don’t appear to have been a windfall for hospitals.*

*The Ohio Hospital Association estimates its 240 members have lost about $3 billion since early March because of pandemic-related limits on nonessential surgeries and procedures, which can be as much as 40% of a hospital’s revenue.*

*The financial strain is exacerbated by the higher cost of caring for COVID patients, which is why Congress approved the higher Medicare rate as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act."*

I try to say this as neutral as possible.
Someone in government who doesn't do the work the hospitals do and never even looked at the data or budgets.  He an hypothetical statement in which Social Media jumped on as if it was true even though there were no proof in the statement that he made.    Once they actually looked into it they discovered the opposite of the claim that was made. This confusion could have been prevented if it was actually looked into before making the statements or if Social Media could think things through. Or just ask a simple question.  What are the costs associated with treating and diagnosing a COVID-19 patient?  Then actually getting that information.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not hard for me to find things on the Internet, but I think that's because I spent 4 years doing internet research for weekly research papers that I was responsible for.
> 
> "COVID patients: hospitals get paid more, but it's complicated
> *Are hospitals paid more to care for coronavirus patients? (Aug.3, 2020)*
> 
> "Yes, hospitals get an additional 20% for Medicare patients treated for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.* But there's more to the story behind this temporary reimbursement."*
> 
> *"The higher Medicare rate stirred controversy in April after Republican Sen. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota doctor, speculated on Fox News that the additional money might inspire hospital administrators to make it look like routine pneumonia cases were COVID-19 cases."*
> 
> *"Months later, though, the higher payouts don’t appear to have been a windfall for hospitals.*
> 
> *The Ohio Hospital Association estimates its 240 members have lost about $3 billion since early March because of pandemic-related limits on nonessential surgeries and procedures, which can be as much as 40% of a hospital’s revenue.*
> 
> *The financial strain is exacerbated by the higher cost of caring for COVID patients, which is why Congress approved the higher Medicare rate as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act."*
> 
> I try to say this as neutral as possible.
> Someone in government who doesn't do the work the hospitals do and never even looked at the data or budgets.  He an hypothetical statement in which Social Media jumped on as if it was true even though there were no proof in the statement that he made.    Once they actually looked into it they discovered the opposite of the claim that was made. This confusion could have been prevented if it was actually looked into before making the statements or if Social Media could think things through. Or just ask a simple question.  What are the costs associated with treating and diagnosing a COVID-19 patient?  Then actually getting that information.



One or two stores are very short on data.  It takes more effort, more reference articles.  I bet you already know that...and fact-checking articles are notorious for publishing only parts of the details.

Sometimes it takes weeks of digging thru articals to get the whole story.

Further down in the article, the guy clarified is statement saying, doctors may not tend to game the system, but administrates might.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> In this case, dude posted a link that appears to contradict his stated position. I'm still confused by that.


I thought the same thing when I read the article too.  I also saw that it was first brought up on Fox News.  If that's the case then we  already know the spin that's going to be put on the comment that they were quoting.  Fox News wasn't always like this.  Back in the day with Geraldo and Hannity and Colmes,  they were more reliable with the news.  But these days it just sounds like one big talk show, Little news with a lot of opinions.

I stopped watching Fox when Colmes left. Holmes would fact check Hannity when Hannity said something incorrect.  They never replaced him

I found this. "To get an idea of just how high, Cox analyzed medical claims from 18 million patients with insurance from their employer who were hospitalized in 2018 with pneumonia.* Overall, costs ranged from just under $10,000 to just over $20,000*" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/29/823438983/what-is-the-cost-of-covid-19-treatment

This is the cost of treating pneumonia,  so $16,000 per patient is in the same ball part as Pneumonia.  The biggest difference is that Pneumonia doesn't spread like Covid-19 and Covid-19 requires operational changes to be made in order to handle it.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> I thought the same thing when I read the article too.  I also saw that it was first brought up on Fox News.  If that's the case then we  already know the spin that's going to be put on the comment that they were quoting.  Fox News wasn't always like this.  Back in the day with Geraldo and Hannity and Colmes,  they were more reliable with the news.  But these days it just sounds like one big talk show, Little news with a lot of opinions.
> 
> I stopped watching Fox when Colmes left. Holmes would fact check Hannity when Hannity said something incorrect.  They never replaced him
> 
> I found this. "To get an idea of just how high, Cox analyzed medical claims from 18 million patients with insurance from their employer who were hospitalized in 2018 with pneumonia.* Overall, costs ranged from just under $10,000 to just over $20,000*" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/29/823438983/what-is-the-cost-of-covid-19-treatment
> 
> This is the cost of treating pneumonia,  so $16,000 per patient is in the same ball part as Pneumonia.  The biggest difference is that Pneumonia doesn't spread like Covid-19 and Covid-19 requires operational changes to be made in order to handle it.



Everybody spins the news.  Anybody that doesn't think so is not neutral.  At least on Fox they'd do a subject and bring in a pundit from each side to debate the issue.  I stopped watching them because then you'd have to listen to no more then both sides spinning issues.  Spin comes from both sides an never includes all the data.  That's why I study both sides...and then go well beyond that to dig out more.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Sometimes it takes weeks of digging thru articals to get the whole story.
> 
> Further down in the article, the guy clarified is statement saying, doctors may not tend to game the system, but administrates might.


Administration in any organization runs the risk of being shady.  It's not an hospital thing, it's an administration thing.  I sure people say the same things about their own Jobs.  I know I say it about mine.  I complain with co-workers about certain things and the complaints are always about upper management's administrative decisions.  I did the same thing when I worked in government.   

People in the administrative department of an organization sometimes believes that they have to "cheat" in order to get things done.  Most people on the front line know that there's no need to cheat.   If you have an accurate understanding of your company then you should be able to make the necessary arguments you need for funding. 

The fact that administrators may try to game a system is no secret.  Look as US government and you'll see it.  It is equally true "that employees may try to steal money from the company.".   It doesn't mean that's what going on.  It's a possibility that always exists.  It's nothing new.  If politicians are worried about money being missed used then you simply add necessary requirements, aka regulations, that hospitals must meet before they get the money.  But there's a sector of U.S. government that doesn't like regulations.  I

If they want less regulations then they shouldn't get made when people start gaming the system.  But in that same article it sesm that they actually looked at the budgets of multiple hospitals and discovered that the hospitals that they checked weren't doing what the  government offical stated that they might do.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Everybody spins the news. Anybody that doesn't think so is not neutral.


That's why I like news organizations that list their sources.   When they  list the source you can find it directly from the person or organizations that they are quoting.
By default I don't read too many websites that don't have links to sources.   For me I usually get curious beyond the article.  Articles are just summaries so if you want to know more then it's just best to go to the original source.  It's easier to do that when the website lists their refrences.   Sort of like how Wikipedia does.  

I often use Wikipedia to help me find sources on what I'm looking for.  I almost always over look what is posted on wikipedia and go straight to the source section.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> That's why I like news organizations that list their sources.   When they  list the source you can find it directly from the person or organizations that they are quoting.
> By default I don't read too many websites that don't have links to sources.   For me I usually get curious beyond the article.  Articles are just summaries so if you want to know more then it's just best to go to the original source.  It's easier to do that when the website lists their refrences.   Sort of like how Wikipedia does.
> 
> I often use Wikipedia to help me find sources on what I'm looking for.  I almost always over look what is posted on wikipedia and go straight to the source section.



You seem to have plenty of ability...and willingness to spend time at it.  Remember tho that Wikipedia is written by 1000s of volunteer editors.  I've found issues on their site too.  That's why I use several search engines.

Regarding your other post, smart regulation would be nice, but nearly all legislation is infuenced by lobbyests...and back-room dealing...and there's no such thing as a clean bill.  No matter who does it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> At least on Fox they'd do a subject and bring in a pundit from each side to debate the issue.


I'm pretty sure other news organizations of people form opposing sides on, to speak on the network.  I don't think that's just a Fox Thing.   I know on MSNBC Micheal Steel often comes on the show to give his insight.  He's the former Chairman of the RNC.


----------



## Steve

There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> You seem to have plenty of ability...and willingness to spend time at it. Remember tho that Wikipedia is written by 1000s of volunteer editors. I've found issues on their site too. That's why I use several search engines.


That's why I go look for the sources.  I'm not sure how you are searching on google.  but what saves me time is to type what I'm looking for and then type a reputable organization. So if I'm looking for something about Covi-19,  I type the institutions with some credibility.  This usually leads me to secondary organizations who had source links in their article that go directly to the information that I'm looking for.



EdwardA said:


> Regarding your other post, smart regulation would be nice, but nearly all legislation is infuenced by lobbyests...and back-room dealing...and there's no such thing as a clean bill. No matter who does it.


I agree with that.  I'm not a fan of lobbyist.   They often drown out the concerns of citizen and try to have influence with the government so that it benefits them.  Some issues I can see a need for them to have some input, but that input should be limited.   It shouldn't be a "24 hour a day push" to get things to bend their way as a business.

I don't work in that field but my idea would be 20% push for business needs and 80% push for citizens who are also my customers.  The better off my customer is the more money my customer will be able to spend.  I've owned a few businesses in the past and it's always the same for me.   I want people to have jobs and make enough money so that they can buy more of the things they want.    My customers are just like me.  When I have more money I'm able to save more money and buy more things.   When I make more money, I don't spend less.  I spend less when I don't have money and I'm not able to save anything because the money that I do have goes to expenses.

Rich people follow the same pattern.  When they make more money they buy more things and can save more money.   So for me, a broke customer is bad for business.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.



High level people involved in campaigs or a specific party are the worst "spinners" there is.  That's their job...to spin a positive point of view on the issue for their side.  It's a career choice that they do for life, and extremely rare that they change sides or become even a little neutral.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  Just a couple of quick points.  First, I don't think @dvcochran had ever read that article before he posted it.  Couple of things make me think that.  One, I don't think it says what he thinks it says.  And two, it was published in 1986.  While I think much of what's in it is still relevant, it's not a contemporary article by the NIH, and many of the specifics it discusses are literally 30+ years out of date.  He was desperately googling anything that he thought might support his position and came up with this.  

The article goes into some depth about where we are at in 1986 with regards to the following 6 specific ethical issues specifically related to the American "for profit" healthcare system.  I encourage everyone to read it, because while it doesn't give you an accurate sense of where we are now, it will definitely show us all where our current mess came from. 





> The most serious ethical criticisms of for-profit health care can be grouped under six headings. For-profit health care institutions are said to (1) exacerbate the problem of access to health care, (2) constitute unfair competition against nonprofit institutions, (3) treat health care as a commodity rather than a right, (4) include incentives and organizational controls that adversely affect the physician-patient relationship, creating conflicts of interest that can diminish the quality of care and erode the patient's trust in his physician and the public's trust in the medical profession, (5) undermine medical education, and (6) constitute a "medical-industrial complex" that threatens to use its great economic power to exert undue influence on public policy concerning health care. Each of these criticisms will be examined in turn.



The only difference between then and now is that the Overton window has shifted.  In 1986, the idea of a single payer system was considered completely unrealistic.  however, fun fact, Medicare was originally envisioned to expand to cover everyone in the USA.  It was just undermined by some partisan politicians at the behest of the insurance industries.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.


Yep.  High-Five  Not only are they there, but lately it seems as if they have been getting more on the show lately.  Sometimes I can't tell the difference between the republicans and the democrats on that network.  Sometimes I'm shocked to hear that some of them are republicans.  A lot of them sound like some of my Republican friends who are more towards the middle.  Sometimes my republican friends think I'm actually republican.  It just blows their minds when they find out that I'm not.

I get the same thing with religion.  I had a Muslim tell me that that he thought I was Muslim because of some of the believes and ideas that I shared with him.  It blew his mind too when I told him I wasn't.   I think a lot of things should be like that in general.  To avoid from getting into the political realm.  It should be like 2 people from martial arts who see and understand punches without any negative perspective on which system it came from. 

If martial arts were a political system.  Wing Chun  debates would the dysfunction that we often see.   Not saying the system is dysfunctional.  The debates are about who is Pure and who isn't, and how one Wing Chun Stance is right and the other Wing Chun stance is wrong.    I haven't heard much of that from the Wing Chun guys lately.  So there's hope lol.


----------



## EdwardA

JowGaWolf said:


> That's why I go look for the sources.  I'm not sure how you are searching on google.  but what saves me time is to type what I'm looking for and then type a reputable organization. So if I'm looking for something about Covi-19,  I type the institutions with some credibility.  This usually leads me to secondary organizations who had source links in their article that go directly to the information that I'm looking for.
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I'm not a fan of lobbyist.   They often drown out the concerns of citizen and try to have influence with the government so that it benefits them.  Some issues I can see a need for them to have some input, but that input should be limited.   It shouldn't be a "24 hour a day push" to get things to bend their way as a business.
> 
> I don't work in that field but my idea would be 20% push for business needs and 80% push for citizens who are also my customers.  The better off my customer is the more money my customer will be able to spend.  I've owned a few businesses in the past and it's always the same for me.   I want people to have jobs and make enough money so that they can buy more of the things they want.    My customers are just like me.  When I have more money I'm able to save more money and buy more things.   When I make more money, I don't spend less.  I spend less when I don't have money and I'm not able to save anything because the money that I do have goes to expenses.
> 
> Rich people follow the same pattern.  When they make more money they buy more things and can save more money.   So for me, a broke customer is bad for business.



I spent almost my whole life working self-employed, for wealthy home or property owners.  When they had more money, they did more work...and they treated me like family.

Here's something to stetch your intellect.  It took me five years to understand this technology.  Written buy a guy that was highly awarded for inventing this technology before anybody else was using it.  Not for discussion in this topic tho...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293?scroll=top&needAccess=true


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> High level people involved in campaigs or a specific party are the worst "spinners" there is.  That's their job...to spin a positive point of view on the issue for their side.  It's a career choice that they do for life, and extremely rare that they change sides or become even a little neutral.


Agreed.  "Spinners" or not, they tend to work on campaigns for candidates they happen to agree with.  The point isn't that they weren't "spinners" (though that's something that could be debated).  It's that they aren't liberals/progressives.

For example, Nicole Wallace hosts Deadline: White House every day.  She worked for Jeb Bush, then on George W. Bush's presidential campaign and what his communications director, and then on McCain's presidential run as a senior advisor.  Whatever else one might say about her, she has always been a Conservative Republican.  

And she hosts a show on MSNBC.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Agreed.  "Spinners" or not, they tend to work on campaigns for candidates they happen to agree with.  The point isn't that they weren't "spinners" (though that's something that could be debated).  It's that they aren't liberals/progressives.
> 
> For example, Nicole Wallace hosts Deadline: White House every day.  She worked for Jeb Bush, then on George W. Bush's presidential campaign and what his communications director, and then on McCain's presidential run as a senior advisor.  Whatever else one might say about her, she has always been a Conservative Republican.
> 
> And she hosts a show on MSNBC.



Many of them however are middle of the road...called RINOs by Conservatives.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Administration in any organization runs the risk of being shady.  It's not an hospital thing, it's an administration thing.  I sure people say the same things about their own Jobs.  I know I say it about mine.  I complain with co-workers about certain things and the complaints are always about upper management's administrative decisions.  I did the same thing when I worked in government.
> 
> People in the administrative department of an organization sometimes believes that they have to "cheat" in order to get things done.  Most people on the front line know that there's no need to cheat.   If you have an accurate understanding of your company then you should be able to make the necessary arguments you need for funding.
> 
> The fact that administrators may try to game a system is no secret.  Look as US government and you'll see it.  It is equally true "that employees may try to steal money from the company.".   It doesn't mean that's what going on.  It's a possibility that always exists.  It's nothing new.  If politicians are worried about money being missed used then you simply add necessary requirements, aka regulations, that hospitals must meet before they get the money.  But there's a sector of U.S. government that doesn't like regulations.  I
> 
> If they want less regulations then they shouldn't get made when people start gaming the system.  But in that same article it sesm that they actually looked at the budgets of multiple hospitals and discovered that the hospitals that they checked weren't doing what the  government offical stated that they might do.


At the risk of being a broken record, I can completely understand that in a hospital being run by a business, you'll have a natural conflict between the doctors trying to treat the patients and the administration who are beholden to the shareholders.  

I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimate issues you raise with regards to complex regulations.  But regulatory oversight alone doesn't cause the issues you're talking about above.  It's a fundamental schism between the mission of the facility and the reality of maximizing profit.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Many of them however are middle of the road...called RINOs by Conservatives.


It's a circular logic.  If you turn the radio dial all the way to the right, every other station is going to appear left.  I mean, the middle looks pretty liberal to a fascist.  Right?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> At the risk of being a broken record, I can completely understand that in a hospital being run by a business, you'll have a natural conflict between the doctors trying to treat the patients and the administration who are beholden to the shareholders.
> 
> I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimate issues you raise with regards to complex regulations.  But regulatory oversight alone doesn't cause the issues you're talking about above.  It's a fundamental schism between the mission of the facility and the reality of maximizing profit.


I totally agree with what you said.  Regulatory oversight can't fix everything nor should it.  There just has to be a good balance between business and "citizenship."   If it's too heavy on the "citizen end" then the business doesn't make profit.   If it's too high on the business end of things, then the business doesn't make a profit.

Companies have moved away from "The customer is always right" to "Building a relation ship with the customer".   As a consumer, I notice that my complaints with businesses now come off more like me talking to a friend who has shorted me change.  I now see some businesses and an organization that is trying to help me do whatever I'm trying to do.  I'm not so quick to blow up at them, unless they are just really bad and I feel that I was intentionally ripped off.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> It's a circular logic.  If you turn the radio dial all the way to the right, every other station is going to appear left.  I mean, the middle looks pretty liberal to a fascist.  Right?



You can't understand the point of neutral research, otherwise you would have said Marxist on one side and Facist on the other.  Derogatory terminology toward one side blows a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> You can't understand the point of neutral research, otherwise you would have said Marxist on one side and Facist on the other.  Derogatory terminology toward one side blows a reasonable discussion.


I'm too tired to fix this for you.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> I'm too tired to fix this for you.



No worry. I don't expect you to... .I doubt you can anyway. It would probably be a waste of time.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> No worry. I don't expect you to... .


I'm beginning to think you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Here I'll take a stab.  When I said that everything looks left when you're all the way to the right, can you tell me how you got neutral research out of that?  I don't understand why you think the far left has anything to do with Nicole Wallace or this discussion.  Are you suggesting she's a Marxist?


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> I'm beginning to think you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion.
> 
> Here I'll take a stab.  When I said that everything looks left when you're all the way to the right, can you tell me how you got neutral research out of that?  I don't understand why you think the far left has anything to do with Nicole Wallace or this discussion.  Are you suggesting she's a Marxist?




You used liberal to describe one side and Facist to describe the other side.  Did you forget that?  Go back and look.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> You used liberal to describe one side and Facist to describe the other side.  Did you forget that?  Go back and look.


I think you should look at it again.  You didn't understand the point.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> I think you should look at it again.  You didn't understand the point.



I understood, I'm just extremely against using such a derogatory term like that one.  I don't regard it lightly.  Ever watch Shindlers List?  Pretty serious subject.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> I understood, I'm just extremely against using such a derogatory term like that one.  I don't regard it lightly.  Ever watch Shindlers List?  Pretty serious subject.


I don't take it lightly either.  We agree it's a serious subject.  And I'm still not sure you understood my other post.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

[Insert standard reminder about politics here.]

Carry on.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> I don't take it lightly either.  We agree it's a serious subject.  And I'm still not sure you understood my other post.



Your statement was about points of view.  That's pretty simple.  I only used both terms to equate the two opposites....tho Stallin probably killed more people than anybody in history.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Your statement was about points of view.  That's pretty simple.  I only used both terms to equate the two opposites....tho Stalling probably killed more people than anybody in history.


Okay. I'll say the same thing a little differently.  When you're a fascist, everything else looks like Marxism.  Better?  And make no mistake, the USA is flirting dangerously close to fascism.  I'm not sure our democracy survives another 4 years.


----------



## EdwardA

Steve said:


> Okay. I'll say the same thing a little differently.  When you're a fascist, everything else looks like Marxism.  Better?  And make no mistake, the USA is flirting dangerously close to fascism.  I'm not sure our democracy survives another 4 years.



This is exactly why another warming was given, and that is a biased statement.  I knew what you said earlier was a tell.  Now you've confirmed it.  You refuse to be neutral for the sake of the forum.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> This is exactly why another warming was given, and that is a biased statement.  I knew what you said earlier was a tell.  Now you've confirmed it.  You cannot be neutral for the sake of the forum.


lol. You found me out.  You're very smart.  I'm not neutral.    Can you remind me what your point is?   Or how about the unbiased neutrality rule?  I must have missed that one.


----------



## EdwardA

Ignored, out of respect for the forum rules.


----------



## drop bear

EdwardA said:


> Your statement was about points of view.  That's pretty simple.  I only used both terms to equate the two opposites....tho Stallin probably killed more people than anybody in history.



Ok.

But left and right is a point of perspective. A Democrat? (I hope I got that correct. The lefty ones) is still a capitalist. So to a Marxist a Democrat is a right winger. But to a neo Nazi a Democrat is a Marxist.

Making nobody really anything.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> Kind of typing my response as I'm reading the article.  Just some thoughts passing.  If I don't type it I'll forget.  So halfway through the article it looks COVID-19 financial support was rushed for good reasons.  The US has had 189,000 deaths due to COVID-19.   We weren't ready.  It was either pay or not pay to try to save people lives. Kind of the Catch 22.  But anyway half way in the article was this.
> 
> "Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted, "*Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media.*"
> 
> Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "*Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting.*""  I can understand why it would cost more money to treat COVID-19.  It's a new virus with no standard treatment.  Treating the systems the way that you would normally treat them was actually making things worse.
> 
> So the questions becomes, "*How much does it cost to treat an unknown disease that became a Pandameic?*"   What is the price tag that you would put on the effort to try to stop a pandemic?  Do you stop trying when you hit $50,000 for the patient.  How much does it cost to treat a COVID-19 patient with no previous information to go on?   I know doctors like money but I think many of them would prefer the glory of being the doctor that contributed to the cure.
> 
> 
> So I continued reading and they state that hospitals do get paid more for Treating Covid-19. But it's not a conspiracy or bad business.  To sum it up:  It just cost More to Treat a person with COVID-19 than it does to treat someone without it.  Below is what was also on the same page you showed.
> 
> "*We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE*.
> *
> Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.*
> 
> This higher allocation of funds has been made possible under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act through a Medicare 20% add-on to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients, as verified by USA TODAY through the American Hospital Association Special Bulletin on the topic."
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you read this, but what I read seems normal.   COVID-19 is not the flu.  Different measures must be taken in order to deal with COVID-19. There are different costs associated with COVID-19 that you don't have when treating things like the flu.



As near as I can tell you read around the point(s) that confirm the hospitals are incentivised to code visits as COVID. I do not know how you can read around that.


----------



## Steve

EdwardA said:


> Ignored, out of respect for the forum rules.


I could really use a link to that neutrality rule you're talking about, though.  Which forum rule are you respecting, exactly?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Come on.  You're so disingenuous.  I read the article and it either doesn't say what you think it says, or you agree with me that a "for profit" healthcare system is a very bad idea.
> 
> I think single-payer is an excellent idea.  Serious question.  Did you read the article you posted?   Yes or no.
> I really don't understand what you're referring to by "blowback."  I mean, you posted two things that seem incongruous, and you're saying good things as though they are bad things.  A single payer system would be awesome for the country.  Well, it would be awesome for the patients.  it would be terrible for all of the money-grubbers who have their hands in the pot.
> 
> I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect health care system, but to fix the grift in our system and ensure everyone can get the care we need, we have to do at least 3 things:  1:  Get profit out of the equation.  It's immoral.  2:  Control the outrageous costs and create a consistent payment schedule.  At this point, the costs are hidden, are very arbitrary (and can vary wildly from facility to facility) and often patients have no choice where they get their care.  3:  Related to the last is the illusion of choice.  We have very few choices, and sometimes, even when we can exercise some choices, we are still screwed.
> 
> While single payer doesn't fix every problem within the medical system, it can fix every one of those things.  It would eliminate the intentional confusion around billing.  There would be no more "out of network" expenses.  It would decouple healthcare from employment, freeing folks to take more entrepreneurial risk.  It would save families from losing their retirement accounts and homes in order to pay for medical expenses.  Everyone would be covered.
> 
> And all that said, I think America could come up with a great system.  We have pretty much every other wealthy, industrialized nation in the world to look at for inspiration.



Well, everyone knows by now you are going to rebuke and attack me no matter what I say. You attack even when I have said nothing. Just continues to show how bad your form is and your poor character. Shallow. Very, very shallow. 

As for you 3 things:
1) When leveraged and used effectively with regulatory control profit is the most power tool possible to facilitate change in the healthcare system. 
2.) It is a three headed demon: hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. Again, regulation not totalitarian control from a political/social structure that knows nothing about the inner workings is the only way to ever help correct the system. Take the profit out of the equation and all you do is create an industry that quality people (doctors/nurses) do not want to work for. We will end up with the terrible care you hear about in socialized economies. I do agree that it needs to be totally blown up in a sense. To the point their needs to be much more separation in some areas and streamlining in others. 
3.) What? More self created delusion. 

Funny. Sad but funny. Take a poll from every industrialized country and see where the US stands. I will modify a commonly made statement. If it is so bad here in the US move north across the border.

You have traveled around. Have you ever had to use socialized medicine in a totally private sense (not military)?


----------



## dvcochran

Bruce7 said:


> I do not wish to disagree with you. Hospitals break even or lose money on C-19 cases. They can not do option surgery so hospitals are losing money. Your logic has gone out the window.



In the states, elective surgery was put on hold due to the uncertain infection rate of the virus. At least in TN they continued elective surgery in August. 
I cannot speak to the claims of lost money but do not see how it is possible since a visit to the doctor for cold/flu symptoms is billed at about a factor of just over 9 times more if C-19 is applied. So for the vastly greater number of C-19 cases where a person just felt crappy, (cold/flu symptoms) and was nothing more that an office visit, the hospital/doctor made almost 10 times more money. Great incentive to use the virus to make money.  
We all know most everyone in healthcare seemed to be working double overtime in areas. There may be a low curve, slingshot effect going on with payouts but there is no denying the incentives for using C-19 to make money in the healthcare industry.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Well, everyone knows by now you are going to rebuke and attack me no matter what I say. You attack even when I have said nothing. Just continues to show how bad your form is and your poor character. Shallow. Very, very shallow.


I haven't attacked you.  I have focused on your behavior.  You posted a link from 1986, and I just don't believe you read carefully before sharing it.  As I said before, if you actually read the article and agree with it, I think you're more in favor of single payer than you may realize.  There is much in that article that I agree with wholeheartedly, and we've seen the impact of many of the observations magnify over the last 35 years.





> As for you 3 things:
> 1) When leveraged and used effectively with regulatory control profit is the most power tool possible to facilitate change in the healthcare system.


I agree that profit can be a powerful motivator.  The issue isn't whether profit is motivating. 

I also agree that regulatory control is critical.  It's like the conscience for business, keeping people from doing things they shouldn't. 

Where we disagree is that profit and healthcare is moral.  I do not believe so.  When you introduce powerfully motivating, base impulses like greed into the equation, pitting that against misery, greed wins.  





> 2.) It is a three headed demon: hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. Again, regulation not totalitarian control from a political/social structure that knows nothing about the inner workings is the only way to ever help correct the system. Take the profit out of the equation and all you do is create an industry that quality people (doctors/nurses) do not want to work for. We will end up with the terrible care you hear about in socialized economies. I do agree that it needs to be totally blown up in a sense. To the point their needs to be much more separation in some areas and streamlining in others.
> 3.) What? More self created delusion.


I don't know what to do with this.  It's just so fundamentally flawed, I honestly don't know where to start.  I mean, you manage to imply that every healthcare worker in every country with a single payer system is a not a quality person, and also suggest that the quality of care in those countries is terrible.  Both, I think, are ignorant mischaracterizations. 


> Funny. Sad but funny. Take a poll from every industrialized country and see where the US stands. I will modify a commonly made statement. If it is so bad here in the US move north across the border.


Now, this is something I can work with.  Data!  Turns out, there are a lot of polls.  You seem to consider the NIH a credible source.  This is an article I read earlier this year, when I was knocking on doors during the primaries.   It's from 2012, so it's not the most current, but it's still very relevant.  For context, it was written shortly after the ACA was ratified in 2010.  

Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada

Turns out, in America, about 58% of folks overall are in favor of a single payer system.   Here's a link to a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll from 2015, so in the run up to the LAST election.  Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: December 2015

In the USA, we spend more on healthcare (by a lot), including among the highest administrative costs by far than most other countries, have the lowest life expectancy of any comparable country, and people are the LEAST satisfied with their care.  There is also well documented systemic racism within the system that results in a disproportionate number of issues for people of color than for white patients.

Here's a link to a relevant Gallup poll from 2015 (again, in the run up to the last election):  Ratings of U.S. Healthcare Quality No Better After ACA


> *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
> 
> 53% of Americans rate healthcare quality in U.S. positively
> One in three rate U.S. healthcare coverage positively
> Fewer than one in four satisfied with cost of healthcare


Digging into actual satisfaction numbers, folks with government managed health care (military, veterans, Medicare, and Medicaid) are the most satisfied with the way the health care system is working.  
Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied








> You have traveled around. Have you ever had to use socialized medicine in a totally private sense (not military)?


Lastly, regarding where we rank, maybe this will be helpful:  U.S. health care system ranks lowest in international survey

And about travelling, what kind of experience do you have with universal healthcare? 

Also, I wonder why you would separate military healthcare, which is a single payer system, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, as somehow different.  Can you explain that more?


----------



## JowGaWolf

EdwardA said:


> Ignored, out of respect for the forum rules.


I'm with you on this one. I don't like the classifications and labels.  It starts everything Sunday2020


dvcochran said:


> As near as I can tell you read around the point(s) that confirm the hospitals are incentivised to code visits as COVID. I do not know how you can read around that.


Show me where it says that Hospitals are incentivized to code visits as COVID. Point that out to me.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm with you on this one. I don't like the classifications and labels.  It starts everything Sunday2020


Fair enough.  Another way to say the same thing is, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The thread is showing me that we are reading the same articles but aren't getting the same message out of it.  There seems to be one group that reads it and accepts it at face value and another group that "reads into it"  as if there's a secret message.  If everyone has a perspective.  I wonder if the people who take it for face value usually talk that way in everyday conversations. While the other group "talks in code"  where they aren't just coming out and saying what they mean, but kind of beats around the conversation in a way that  forces people to try to figure stuff out.

You and I read the articles is it's literally stating what are claiming.   Then Dvcochran makes a statement saying that I'm "reading the point"  I think my new approach is going to ask 2 questions from now own. 
1. What was the point in the article
2. What do you think the article is saying.

Stuff like that could cause tons of misunderstanding and cause a severe break down in communication.

In my everyday communications, I tend to take the word of a person and match it up with their actions. But I've met people who have said to me directly "Marvin I can't figure you out."  I'm always shocked because there's not much to figure out about me.  I'm fairly straight forward. There's never a secret agenda with me.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> The thread is showing me that we are reading the same articles but aren't getting the same message out of it.  There seems to be one group that reads it and accepts it at face value and another group that "reads into it"  as if there's a secret message.  If everyone has a perspective.  I wonder if the people who take it for face value usually talk that way in everyday conversations. While the other group "talks in code"  where they aren't just coming out and saying what they mean, but kind of beats around the conversation in a way that  forces people to try to figure stuff out.
> 
> You and I read the articles is it's literally stating what are claiming.   Then Dvcochran makes a statement saying that I'm "reading the point"  I think my new approach is going to ask 2 questions from now own.
> 1. What was the point in the article
> 2. What do you think the article is saying.
> 
> Stuff like that could cause tons of misunderstanding and cause a severe break down in communication.
> 
> In my everyday communications, I tend to take the word of a person and match it up with their actions. But I've met people who have said to me directly "Marvin I can't figure you out."  I'm always shocked because there's not much to figure out about me.  I'm fairly straight forward. There's never a secret agenda with me.


Good points.  Anything unclear about the links I shared?  I try to provide some context along with the links, so it's clear why I'm sharing it.


----------



## Bruce7

dvcochran said:


> As near as I can tell you read around the point(s) that confirm the hospitals are incentivised to code visits as COVID. I do not know how you can read around that.


I have friends and relatives on the front lines in hospitals and statements like your hurts them. They are honest to God hero in my book.


----------



## dvcochran

Bruce7 said:


> I have friends and relatives on the front lines in hospitals and statements like your hurts them. They are honest to God hero in my book.


I fully agree. But that is a different topic isn't it? I am in no way marginalizing what they are doing. Let me be very clear; I thank them for their efforts, now through this virus and all other times. 
My apologies if the statements sounded wrong or were taken the wrong way.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm with you on this one. I don't like the classifications and labels.  It starts everything Sunday2020
> Show me where it says that Hospitals are incentivized to code visits as COVID. Point that out to me.


I did. It is in the link I added earlier.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> The thread is showing me that we are reading the same articles but aren't getting the same message out of it.  There seems to be one group that reads it and accepts it at face value and another group that "reads into it"  as if there's a secret message.  If everyone has a perspective.  I wonder if the people who take it for face value usually talk that way in everyday conversations. While the other group "talks in code"  where they aren't just coming out and saying what they mean, but kind of beats around the conversation in a way that  forces people to try to figure stuff out.
> 
> You and I read the articles is it's literally stating what are claiming.   Then Dvcochran makes a statement saying that I'm "reading the point"  I think my new approach is going to ask 2 questions from now own.
> 1. What was the point in the article
> 2. What do you think the article is saying.
> 
> Stuff like that could cause tons of misunderstanding and cause a severe break down in communication.
> 
> In my everyday communications, I tend to take the word of a person and match it up with their actions. But I've met people who have said to me directly "Marvin I can't figure you out."  I'm always shocked because there's not much to figure out about me.  I'm fairly straight forward. There's never a secret agenda with me.


There is a third group. Those that read the article(s) and ignore the parts they do not agree with.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I have focused on your behavior.


You are truly a desperate, strange individual. You think what you post on a MA forum is 'focusing my behavior'. You are consistently hilarious however. 




Steve said:


> When you introduce powerfully motivating, base impulses like greed into the equation, pitting that against misery, greed wins


You see profit as greed? Truly strange. Do make a profit at whatever job you do?

Kaiser family is extreme leftist. Period. I am not surprised you referenced them however. 

I am not going to waste time commenting on the rest. Just pointless with you.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> You are truly a desperate, strange individual. You think what you post on a MA forum is 'focusing my behavior'. You are consistently hilarious however.
> 
> You see profit as greed? Truly strange. Do make a profit at whatever job you do?
> 
> Kaiser family is extreme leftist. Period. I am not surprised you referenced them however.
> 
> I am not going to waste time commenting on the rest. Just pointless with you.


That post seems over the line to me.

About the only thing I can respond to, since you sort of asked, I don't know anything about the Kaiser family or their politics.  All I know is that Kaiser is the original health insurance company in America.  They were the first to provide any sort of "pre-paid" health care.  I referenced them because they did a study that is relevant, and they're literally the OG Health Insurance company in the USA.

Fun fact: I still have my grandfather's Kaiser medical card from when he worked on the Liberty Ships in WWII at the Kaiser shipyards as a welder.  He carried it in his wallet from WWII until he passed in the 90s, so it was clearly important to him.

Regarding the rest, the part you didn't want to waste your time commenting on is the 80% of my post where I shared links to information and articles from sources like Gallup and the NIH, while providing some context so you know why I posted the links and what I think they mean.  Cool.  But if you're not going to address the data, why post a response at all?

Edit:  So, I went back to reread the thread.  I think you're escalating, and you're getting increasingly bold, and saying things that are more and more overtly insulting. I will admit that I'm getting pretty tired of your increasingly nasty tone.  This isn't the first time you've called me strange, desperate or other things, and you need to fix that. Disagree with my posts, fine.  I disagree with most of yours.  But you need to stop with the personal attacks.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

*THREAD LOCKED
*
William Hollwedel
@Monkey Turned Wolf 
MartialTalk Moderator


----------

