Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/15/2025 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
>
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
>

>
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who
well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie
keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability,
but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.

>
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
>
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
>
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
>
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
>
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
>
>

>
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript

>
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
>

>
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.

>
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
>
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?"  Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
>
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
>
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.

  There goes Frankie telling lies again.
 What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.

You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that studies are not to be trusted.
--
- Frank Krygowski