Hard to say. US testing has issues and is understating cases, but I dont think testing is so lol that we are getting case trend lines directionally wrong. Could be an anomaly, could be a lol data dump some of our states do at various points, could be a number of things.
Worldometer shows deaths trending down in the US.
The efficacy of reading this thread is waning. Thread needs a booster dose of shut the fuck up and take the drama to the drama thread.
I had a long reply but Iâm mostly going to let it go. Youâve made all your points repeatedly. That others disagree doesnât mean they donât understand you or arenât âfollowing closelyâ.
I wouldnât say Churchill is anti-vax, but I can see why people view him as such. He comes across as anti-vax adjacent because of his willingness to use questionable sources and he looks like he knows what he is doing because heâs been reluctant in the past to cite, even when pushed, unless it comes from BBC News. It wouldnât be shocking if heâs just posting stuff that shows up in his Facebook feed. Heâs how people appear when poised to go down the rabbithole. Some here are ready to bat that shit down, possibly using him to take out all of their frustrations that they feel about the sea of stupidity in general society.
They treat him as if they believe he is not arguing in good faith and he does nothing to give them a reason to think otherwise. Heâs been temp-banned for trolling this thread by several different mods, so it seems likely their POV has some merit to it. At this point, Churchill needs to understand that he has earned zero benefit of the doubt and should change how he posts if he wants to cause less drama or else he understands perfectly and doesnât care or wants more drama.
I mean, when youâve been banned what, 5+ times, by 3+ different mods for posting antivaxx or from sources that are very obscure/antivaxx how you react here is very important! If you were posting here in good faith, then people did some further research on your posts and went âhey dude, your sources were kind of bad for x, y and z reasons.â Iâd maybeâŚnot do the same thing another 20 times, while ignoring the criticisms? Thatâs pure trolling at this stage. It would be fine if anyone did this kind of thing once or twice, then when criticized went âoops, my bad Iâll do better.â Itâs been a whole year and a half of this multiple times a week.
Why are we acting like itâs so innocent? Itâs clearly just trolling, no reasonable person would react in the way they have otherwise.
It also doesnât help that Churchill pulls stuff like creating his own graphic consisting of:
HEREâS A SCARY NUMBER IN BOLD
HEY HEREâS A SCARIER NUMBER
HOLY FUCK LOOK AT THIS NUMBER
âŚand presenting it as if itâs pulled directly from the study. Heâs basically Buzzfeed.
WTF is this âBEE BEE CEEâ shit Jal and Church are always on about? Seems like blatant trolling afaict.
I donât think CN or Wookie push back nearly as hard at someone who is not churchill posting the same content. I understand why they have whatever bias you think is toxic. (And what if that bias is both toxic and justified?) Itâs because they think this thread is a special place worth defending. Itâs not because of some irrational, personal animus against certain posters.
Iâm not going to accuse churchill of being an anti-vaxxer or a troll, but I do think he is being an ineffective communicator for whatever point he is trying to make.
Perception doesnât have to match reality and the perception stretches back towards previous threads.
Iâve seen you and Jal both doing it in the last 24 hours and Iâd appreciate it if youâd knock it off.
it is quite common in academia to choose not to publish something for fear of being ridiculed. this is an important counter incentive to all the rewards that come with publishing an alarmist paper on a poorly-constructed experiment that will no doubt go viral in the magasphere.
the âsystemâ is probably harsher than you realize until experiencing some humiliation, but in the face of a public health crisis (which is now entirely preventable) the institutions still working to end it probably do not care. iâm not sure itâs possible to care about the feelings of a random on the internet reposting a youtube of a channel thatâs 50% straddling the line, and 50% pushing something anti-scientific.
although it is also evident that the clickbait profits are growing at the time of covid, and academia has been getting owned by misinformation and fake science for some time.
Churchill you link back to another reason why I think you are an anti-vaxxer. In that exchange, you state that âvaccines donât appear to be preventing transmissionâ. Do you still believe that?
I mean I know people who got the vaccine so they could go to family gatherings and not be socially shunned, but they still think itâs all BS and vaccines donât work whatsoever, so itâs possible to be a vaccinated anti-vaxxer!
I donât care who started it, Iâm asking you to please stop because it feels like youâre rather blatantly trying to provoke and rile people up.
In a well tested population, the stats would seem to confer (itâs why UK had no different masking rules for the vaxxed or unvaxxed) To explain, it would appear we have slightly lower numbers of positives pre and post vax schedule at c. 70% fully vaxxed.
Around about the same time, yourself and Wookie were quoting basic germ therory as being the reason vaxxed could never spread it - contrary to the press over here
This is just wrong, and itâs exactly why I say itâs impossible to argue with your imagination. You just make up shit we said and then call us hypocrites for it.
At a very basic level, we knew Pfizer was ~90% effective out of the gate, so people who were vaxxed could still catch the disease and display symptoms. Itâs just basic germ theory that such people would also be capable of spreading it.
I think the claim was that people who are immune wonât spread the disease, or it will happen very rarely. There are always going to be some % of people who get vaxxed but donât become immune for whatever reason.