Stupid shit in Medellin

[Elvis 2008]

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia?

For once, be a man and don't change the subject or lie.

As expected, he behaved like a douche and gave a POS snobby response and did not answer your question. You have to understand he is a Democratic douche and if it is not reported in left wing media, like a douche, he is perplexed. When you do not know the answer, douches will not answer or attack you.

Democratic douches do not know anything about the virus outside of what is in the left wing media, and the answer was not listed there with prominence. The reason Peru had such a high death rate is they had an oxygen shortage. See the link: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/ameri...ntl/index.html.

You have to understand that douches are like going without oxygen themselves if they have to think on their own. All that matters with Covid spread is what Fauci and the "scientists" say: hand washing, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccines ETC. If the "scientists" do not say it, it does not exist.

I half expect Viliany the douche to say, "Since when does oxygen save lives? That sounds like Elvis logic to me".

[BlackThought]

Silicon valley aka the land of 3rd world slaves in the bay area.

How do you think big tech gets so rich, by "overpaying" under qualified 3rd worlders to do perfunctory / menial tasks.

But hey you made it to the Land of milk and honey, living 20 guys jammed in a 3 bedroom apt LOL.

Like the poultry and ag workers from Mexico in the USA jajajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

LOL there you go again, talking about a subject you know nothing about. I work in tech in the Bay Area and I am paid very well. Maybe if you stopped being so mad at the world, you'd be able to use that energy towards finding a decent job, then you can finally go live out your fantasies in Medellin lmao.

[Elvis 2008]

It's been a long-time, if ever, that anyone has argued those that have been vaccinated are not contagious. But clearly, if you don't have the virus, you can't spread it. So if 100 people are vaccinated, and 5 get COVID anyways, that is better to reduce transmission than 20 unvaccinated people getting it and walking around. How does that basic concept elude you?

Because it has already been proven false. Israel was the most vaccinated country on earth a few weeks ago and had higher cases per capita than anyone. I could also add other countries with higher than ever case loads that are heavily vaccinated. On top of that, I do not think you even understand the concept of "if you do not have the virus", what does that means? Infection? Colonization? And how high are the viral counts?

Do you believe the virus went from pangolin to man? If so, then how do you account for transmission from animals to humans given none of them are vaccinated and so many carry the virus? And we are just going to assume this number is zero too? You have not accounted for so many variables in your theory, a theory that has already been disproven.

Regarding your 3% argument, did you bother to follow your own link? That was just for JnJ. Moderna and Pfizer numbers were stated as being 64% and 50% effective in the same original article. Not as good as anyone would hope, but light years away from your basic premise.

Say what? Pfizer's vaccine reportedly has gone from 95 to 50 to 39% effective the last time it was checked. You mean you are just following them now?

Let me ask you something JC do you even get what those numbers mean?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...075-X/fulltext

Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (9995% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months).

End of quote.

Well, that is great. Hell, things are so fucking great with the vaccine that I am going to have to expand these numbers by 20 to make my point. Two million citizens Unvaxxed has 20,000 cases. Vaxxed has 1000, but there is more. Being vaxxed means you are at least 10 X less likely to die. So we have 1000 people. Let's say 1% die. Now we are down to 10. Then you add in that you get a 10 X reduction of being vaxxed and you are down to 1 death. One out of 2 million people die if everyone is vaxxed versus 200 without a vax. Vaccines can prevent 99+% of all deaths. It is a miracle!!

But here is the problem. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2021...ass-2020-total.

The number of COVID-19 deaths recorded so far in 2021 has surpassed the total for 2020, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

Overall, more than 771,000 COVID-19 deaths have been reported in the USA During the pandemic. About 385,000 were reported in 2020, according to CDC data, and more than 386,000 have been reported this year.

Want to explain that?

And maybe this too: Unvaccinated People Are 11 Times More Likely To Die Of COVID-19, New Research Finds.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/10360...es-more-likely

[Paulie97]

OK, I seriously considered writing up an explanation and sourced analysis of each of your 'issues' but decided it isn't worth my time. You think these are 'gotcha' points but the reality is you are too lazy and incapable of analytical work to do it yourself. So you challenge anything and everything that doesn't fit your worldview. Why should I waste my time presenting the research and sources when you could do it yourself? (if you were not so lazy and incompetent). I think a better course for you would be to read and believe everything Elvis writes. It won't be right but at least you won't have to do any work. Have a nice day, wear your mask when you leave home and remember to take your Vaxx card.

Another reason why you shouldn't waste your time is because we had this same discussion about a year ago, hashed out thoroughly and with source citations, at least from some. Such are virtually non-existent from ShooBree and Elvis, probably because they are embarrassed of the places where they read. Surely laziness and incompetence play into it as well. But no one should feel compelled to do it all over again for a twerp in a basement in Sweden whose never been to Colombia, and only frequents the free for all threads where his posts won't get deleted.

The bottom line is that "lockdowns" or written laws are meaningless without effective enforcement and compliance. He operates with the assumption that these laws are well enforced and obeyed, a fallacy on it's face as it assumes "facts" not entered into evidence, thus his questions are loaded. Not surprisingly for anyone who has been to Latin America, there's been plenty of weak enforcement and non-compliance there. Other factors also enter the equation, such as population density, modes of transportation, the makeup of households which are often multi-generational in Latin America, food sourcing, gig economies etc. Etc. And this leap from Sweden to Peru is all a red herring to turn attention away from Sweden's poor Covid performance when measured against their Nordic neighbors who represent similar societies. The immigrant (Blacks and Arabs) card has been played but it fails as Denmark and Norway have similar rates of immigration from Africa and the Middle East.

But anyway it's all still here for sure, in this Stupid Shit thread. Look for posts by myself, JJBee62, and some others, going back about a year, maybe a bit later by a few months. The short of it is that masks and social distancing work, hardly surprising for a respiratory illness passed through aerosols.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

[ShooBree]

No, ShooBreezer I didn't say politicians were smart. You seem to be infatuated with changing what someone says so that you can make your argument. Learn that from Elvis did you?

Here is what I did and still do say. European politicians are smarter and much better informed than you!.

I can't really comment on Kamala Harris or Joe Biden but Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest people that ever ran for President of the US. So why did she lose? She is unattractive and extremely unlikeable. In American politics smarts can not overcome being generally unattractive and unlikeable.

Of course you can, jajajajaja. Why don't you run for office and prove it? Otherwise you're just another narcissistic windbag.

OK, I seriously considered writing up an explanation and sourced analysis of each of your 'issues' but decided it isn't worth my time. You think these are 'gotcha' points but the reality is you are too lazy and incapable of analytical work to do it yourself. So you challenge anything and everything that doesn't fit your worldview. Why should I waste my time presenting the research and sources when you could do it yourself? (if you were not so lazy and incompetent). I think a better course for you would be to read and believe everything Elvis writes. It won't be right but at least you won't have to do any work. Have a nice day, wear your mask when you leave home and remember to take your Vaxx card.

Wow, so much stupidity and dishonesty from you. All that you wrote is incorrect.

Time after time you respond with lies, personal attacks and pathetic attempts to change the topic. You still haven't revealed the source to your lie that "Those higher paying jobs that you are crowing about are largely with American companies".

You're a troll, plan and simple. You make false claims and when confronted you change the topic. Its ridiculous to see.

You just made a long post where you implicitly expressed how smart you consider politician to be and now you changed the tune. You don't have a leg to stand on. You go back and forth because you lack any real arguments.

I don't expect a loser like you to understand it, but there's really no reason to become a politician unless you can't make it in the private sector. That applies especially to us who like to monger.

Time after time you reveal that you have no clue at all how politics works.

[JustTK]

The only case (s) where it would not is if you were to say the chance of getting COVID is exactly the same despite vaccination status (which you might be doing with your "everyone will eventually get COVID" statement) or you are less likely to get COVID by being unvaccinated.

Yes, this is exactly it! Exactly what I am saying and what most pro-vaxxers fail to take in to consideration. I agree that the vax has some efficacy in the short term. The stats are clear on that. So of course, all other things being equal, in the short term fewer vaxd people will contract COVID than non-vaxd (I. E. A smaller % of the group). But everyone will eventually get COVID (I assume this means not literally everybody, but enough people that it may as well be everybody). This has been confirmed by Biden COVID response leader.

Its also clear that the unvaxd is only more susceptible to contracting the virus bcos that group includes people who have yet to catch the virus. But over time more of that group will catch the virus and will have natural immunity, so essentially the vital characteristics of both groups will become equal. Both will undergo a period when they have the virus, and both groups will be equally dangerous to vulnerable people at that time.

So if the end result is the same in both groups, why is it essential to be vaccinated? The non-vaxd are only an extra danger to themselves, so why not leave them be?

[Villainy]

Here you go showing your ignorance again, there's no such thing as "my" European countries. No European would ever say or think something like that.

You're so stupid and gullible that you actually consider politicians to be smart, oh my god! Did you intentionally try to kill me by giving me a laughing attack?

No, ShooBreezer I didn't say politicians were smart. You seem to be infatuated with changing what someone says so that you can make your argument. Learn that from Elvis did you?

Here is what I did and still do say. European politicians are smarter and much better informed than you!.

Are Hillary Clinton, that brown VP chick and Joe Biden the smartest people USA got to offer? If that's the case then I can honestly say that I have severely overestimated the USAns.

I can't really comment on Kamala Harris or Joe Biden but Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest people that ever ran for President of the US. So why did she lose? She is unattractive and extremely unlikeable. In American politics smarts can not overcome being generally unattractive and unlikeable.

I could easily raise the GDP / capita of my country with over 10% in less than 2 years..

Of course you can, jajajajaja. Why don't you run for office and prove it? Otherwise you're just another narcissistic windbag.

Anyways you have constantly failed to make any sort of real argument, you have instead lied and changed the subject every time that I prove you wrong.

Like for real where are the evidence that supports your statement: "Those higher paying jobs that you are crowing about are largely with American companies."

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?

Not to mention the failed lockdowns in Spain, France, Belgium and so on.

For once, be a man and don't change the subject or lie.

OK, I seriously considered writing up an explanation and sourced analysis of each of your 'issues' but decided it isn't worth my time. You think these are 'gotcha' points but the reality is you are too lazy and incapable of analytical work to do it yourself. So you challenge anything and everything that doesn't fit your worldview. Why should I waste my time presenting the research and sources when you could do it yourself? (if you were not so lazy and incompetent). I think a better course for you would be to read and believe everything Elvis writes. It won't be right but at least you won't have to do any work. Have a nice day, wear your mask when you leave home and remember to take your Vaxx card.

[JC9999]

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

Apologies, I just realized you quoted the 5 in 100 and 20 in 100 numbers in your response. I made those numbers up for examples, but they have no relevancy for my core contention. Feel free to substitute in 3 and 10, or 5 and 7, or 11 and 15. It doesn't matter. The foundation of my argument stays exactly the same and still supports my next statement. The only case (s) where it would not is if you were to say the chance of getting COVID is exactly the same despite vaccination status (which you might be doing with your "everyone will eventually get COVID" statement) or you are less likely to get COVID by being unvaccinated.

[JC9999]

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

I'm not sure I fully understand what % reduction in numbers you are questioning, but I believe it was the effectiveness of the vaccines over time. If so, those were straight out of links in the article linked in the original post in which egregious cherry-picking occurred. The main point is that if you don't have COVID, you can't spread COVID. Anything that prevents you from having COVID, no matter how long a period you wish to choose to look at, prevents the transmission of COVID. Now maybe there are good arguments that say "yeah, but, the costs of vaccination outweigh the benefits of that", but if the starting premise is false, the rest of the argument is suspect and difficult (at least for me) to accept.

Even if I were to accept that 100% of people will get COVID at some time, I find your "we do not restrict time" a bit contradictory, as what you have effectively done is not "restrict time" versus a longer period, but actually condensed it into a single time period. Which is the ultimate restriction of time.

[JustTK]

So if 100 people are vaccinated, and 5 get COVID anyways, that is better to reduce transmission than 20 unvaccinated people getting it and walking around. How does that basic concept elude you?.

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

[Villainy]

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?..

I sorry, I can't explain why Peru has twice as many deaths as Peru. Just a hint, if you can't write or understand English. At least proofread what you scribble out.

[Paulie97]

Yet despite all your protestations against getting vaccinated. "It has major side effects", "it doesn't prevent transmission", "it isn't effective", "it's only a political ploy" and on and on and on. Yet you've been vaccinated. I guess that makes you one of the biggest hypocrites around. Or perhaps you don't believe your own BS?

For Elvirus, preaching the latest right wingnut propaganda is a very high priority, yet his survival instincts trump that by a nose. Wink.

[JC9999]

And yes, no matter how much you douches scream and pout and click your heels and wish for it, the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The CDC says so and if a treatment is only 3% effective that would stand to reason..

It's been a long-time, if ever, that anyone has argued those that have been vaccinated are not contagious. But clearly, if you don't have the virus, you can't spread it. So if 100 people are vaccinated, and 5 get COVID anyways, that is better to reduce transmission than 20 unvaccinated people getting it and walking around. How does that basic concept elude you? Regarding your 3% argument, did you bother to follow your own link? That was just for JnJ. Moderna and Pfizer numbers were stated as being 64% and 50% effective in the same original article. Not as good as anyone would hope, but light years away from your basic premise. You are really showing yourself to be a dullard for the ages.

BTW, let me save you some keystrokes. I know "douche" will be coming my way. But since I'm not a democrat, you don't need to add "democratic" in the front of it. And will save you from being wrong once again. And just to note, douche was an insult that was used in the 80's. Time to update your vernacular a bit (hint: "whippersnapper" is not considered current either).

[MarquisdeSade1]

Watch this short video. It explains so well why neo-libs in the USA are so staunchly pro-vax for everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At-BI1KAUJw

Brainwashed by propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma.

https://thejewishvoice.com/2021/10/l...arian-control/

[ShooBree]

OK Elvis. I mean ShooBreezer. One post you claim I'm too arrogant the next post you claim that Europeans are so much smarter than the rest of us. Then you turn around again and claim that you are smarter than the politicians in charge of European countries. You know what is best is regards to lockdowns, partial lockdowns, vaccination mandates etc. . Even though your European countries are reinstituting those same lockdowns, partial lockdowns and vaccination mandates.

Excuse my stating the obvious. But if you want a good look at arrogance, try looking in the mirror. As far as knowing what is effective in combating CoVid, you might try listening to scientists because you sure as hell don't know anything. As to you being smarter than European politicians? I doubt you're as smart as their pets.

Here you go showing your ignorance again, there's no such thing as "my" European countries. No European would ever say or think something like that.

You're so stupid and gullible that you actually consider politicians to be smart, oh my god! Did you intentionally try to kill me by giving me a laughing attack?

Are Hillary Clinton, that brown VP chick and Joe Biden the smartest people USA got to offer? If that's the case then I can honestly say that I have severely overestimated the USAns.

I could easily raise the GDP / capita of my country with over 10% in less than 2 years. The politicians are corrupt and incompetent, only brain damaged fools like you are impressed by them.

Anyways you have constantly failed to make any sort of real argument, you have instead lied and changed the subject every time that I prove you wrong.

Like for real where are the evidence that supports your statement: "Those higher paying jobs that you are crowing about are largely with American companies."

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?

Not to mention the failed lockdowns in Spain, France, Belgium and so on.

For once, be a man and don't change the subject or lie.