Coronavirus - A pale horse,4 men and ....beer

[jimibt]

well, all i can say is that if I'm in need of a good conspiracy, i head here or to the POTUS thread. for entertainment value, i say *keep em coming*. it's one of those cases where you can be both laughing WITH and AT the poster at the same time

[alexmr2]

"staying at home saves lives" - 40+ scientific papers showing weak correlation between death rates and restrictions

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, I don't know if its true or not but I'm sure there are 10 maybe a 100 times more papers that say the opposite.

This response just blows my mind, there are 40+ scientific papers showing the efficacy between restrictions and death rates with the conclusion that there is a very weak correlation

https://thefatemperor.com/published-pap ... uge-harms/

But because you randomly plucked an opinion out of nowhere that there are apparently more papers out there that exist showing the opposite (there isn't), you are the one that's more likely to be right and I'm the one with confirmation bias?

[Naffman]

I've not hidden that conspiracy theories fascinate me & im also not bothered by people calling me a conspiracy theorist. It's more fascinating to me that it really does bother people when others post them, which probably drives me to do it all the more. It does 2 things, its pulls 2 sets of people out of the woodwork, those that believe it and those that fight it, either way it creates one hell of an interesting debate imo... so the answer to why I post them is because I love the response to it, not the direct response, the overall response... look at the election thread, it pulled out a few unknowns and some lengthy discussions that provided an oversight into peoples minds on both sides of the conversation. I'm sorry but I hate test tube conversations with generic unconscious questions... I enjoy stirring the pot a little.

Its all good starting a conversation but you've got to own your beliefs. You can't say you're playing devils advocate while at the same time believing in the conspiracy theories that you post about. You can't have it both ways.

Who says i believe it? I've spent many sentences telling you the exact opposite. What we have to do it differentiate between scepticism and conspiracy theory. Like this thread, I've not said that the virus isn't real, I've just been sceptical of the rules, such as masks... which the scientists were in the beginning. Or how people are using those masks, like the taking them off without clean hands conversation. That's not a conspiracy, that's scepticism. The article I posted the other day and got attacked for wasn't me insinuating that the ladys death was because of the jab, it was the article that was doing that, I merely posted it with, I hope its not because of... but I knew it would trigger something more.

There probably is some things that I post that I genuinely believe which others mark down as conspiracy too but again it creates a conversation where others put me right.

The thing is any unknown is theory, its only after the fact of posting and debating that a conclusion of conspiracy, wrong or right in an individuals mind can be made... one person's knowledge isn't necessarily another person's current knowledge. So out of interest im open to theory but I'm also open to being wrong.

If you don't question things doesn't that just make you naive and gullible...and don't worry about spreadbetting he's still wondering what time his PC is going to get taken

[jamesg46]

Its all good starting a conversation but you've got to own your beliefs. You can't say you're playing devils advocate while at the same time believing in the conspiracy theories that you post about. You can't have it both ways.

Who says i believe it? I've spent many sentences telling you the exact opposite. What we have to do it differentiate between scepticism and conspiracy theory. Like this thread, I've not said that the virus isn't real, I've just been sceptical of the rules, such as masks... which the scientists were in the beginning. Or how people are using those masks, like the taking them off without clean hands conversation. That's not a conspiracy, that's scepticism. The article I posted the other day and got attacked for wasn't me insinuating that the ladys death was because of the jab, it was the article that was doing that, I merely posted it with, I hope its not because of... but I knew it would trigger something more.

There probably is some things that I post that I genuinely believe which others mark down as conspiracy too but again it creates a conversation where others put me right.

The thing is any unknown is theory, its only after the fact of posting and debating that a conclusion of conspiracy, wrong or right in an individuals mind can be made... one person's knowledge isn't necessarily another person's current knowledge. So out of interest im open to theory but I'm also open to being wrong.

If you don't question things doesn't that just make you naive and gullible...and don't worry about spreadbetting he's still wondering what time his PC is going to get taken

Absolutely! Most people are reasonable with their response but boy some go full on chimp mode. spreadbetting is the least of my worries, I just found his response to me over his own imagination interesting.

[jimibt]

"staying at home saves lives" - 40+ scientific papers showing weak correlation between death rates and restrictions

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, I don't know if its true or not but I'm sure there are 10 maybe a 100 times more papers that say the opposite.

This response just blows my mind, there are 40+ scientific papers showing the efficacy between restrictions and death rates with the conclusion that there is a very weak correlation

https://thefatemperor.com/published-pap ... uge-harms/

But because you randomly plucked an opinion out of nowhere that there are apparently more papers out there that exist showing the opposite (there isn't), you are the one that's more likely to be right and I'm the one with confirmation bias?

i think you'll find that ivor is a bit of a conspiracy peddler.. picked a random example but plenty more abound re his right wing brand and messiah complex

https://deepscratch.net/2020/12/07/the- ... s-no-mask/

[Trader Pat]

"staying at home saves lives" - 40+ scientific papers showing weak correlation between death rates and restrictions

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, I don't know if its true or not but I'm sure there are 10 maybe a 100 times more papers that say the opposite.

This response just blows my mind, there are 40+ scientific papers showing the efficacy between restrictions and death rates with the conclusion that there is a very weak correlation

https://thefatemperor.com/published-pap ... uge-harms/

But because you randomly plucked an opinion out of nowhere that there are apparently more papers out there that exist showing the opposite (there isn't), you are the one that's more likely to be right and I'm the one with confirmation bias?

"scientific papers that prove lockdown has reduced the number of Covid deaths"

A simple google search of the above will show many examples of the opposite of the 40+ papers you're talking about.

The link you posted is to 1 guys website who has obviously cherry picked papers that back up his own views.

[Trader Pat]

Who says i believe it? I've spent many sentences telling you the exact opposite. What we have to do it differentiate between scepticism and conspiracy theory. Like this thread, I've not said that the virus isn't real, I've just been sceptical of the rules, such as masks... which the scientists were in the beginning. Or how people are using those masks, like the taking them off without clean hands conversation. That's not a conspiracy, that's scepticism. The article I posted the other day and got attacked for wasn't me insinuating that the ladys death was because of the jab, it was the article that was doing that, I merely posted it with, I hope its not because of... but I knew it would trigger something more.

There probably is some things that I post that I genuinely believe which others mark down as conspiracy too but again it creates a conversation where others put me right.

The thing is any unknown is theory, its only after the fact of posting and debating that a conclusion of conspiracy, wrong or right in an individuals mind can be made... one person's knowledge isn't necessarily another person's current knowledge. So out of interest im open to theory but I'm also open to being wrong.

Whether you believe it or not you definitely lean that way. There are many examples to prove that from Bidens mic up his sleeve to what you posted after the riots about some of the rioters being left wing activists. You're quick to put forward stuff like that as proof of conspiracy but when challenged on it you're very skillful at giving yourself an out.

Every now and then though you have a little rant which shows what you really think with no get out clause, not so long ago you were posting about "The Russia Hoax"

[jimibt]

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, I don't know if its true or not but I'm sure there are 10 maybe a 100 times more papers that say the opposite.

This response just blows my mind, there are 40+ scientific papers showing the efficacy between restrictions and death rates with the conclusion that there is a very weak correlation

https://thefatemperor.com/published-pap ... uge-harms/

But because you randomly plucked an opinion out of nowhere that there are apparently more papers out there that exist showing the opposite (there isn't), you are the one that's more likely to be right and I'm the one with confirmation bias?

"scientific papers that prove lockdown has reduced the number of Covid deaths"

A simple google search of the above will show many examples of the opposite of the 40+ papers you're talking about.

The link you posted is to 1 guys website who has obviously cherry picked papers that back up his own views.

yeah, but a google search ONLY reflects the academic might of the like of the lancet, the bmj the newscientist and the lse - has to be twitter based from a single source that the believers agree with - lol

[Trader Pat]

yeah, but a google search ONLY reflects the academic might of the like of the lancet, the bmj the newscientist and the lse - has to be twitter based from a single source that the believers agree with - lol

That's the problem with a lot of this stuff, it so often gets traced back to one website or twitter feed.

[Trader Pat]

I can almost hear the furious tapping of keyboards in the distance.. I should have had an extra Weetabix this morning!

[jamesg46]

Who says i believe it? I've spent many sentences telling you the exact opposite. What we have to do it differentiate between scepticism and conspiracy theory. Like this thread, I've not said that the virus isn't real, I've just been sceptical of the rules, such as masks... which the scientists were in the beginning. Or how people are using those masks, like the taking them off without clean hands conversation. That's not a conspiracy, that's scepticism. The article I posted the other day and got attacked for wasn't me insinuating that the ladys death was because of the jab, it was the article that was doing that, I merely posted it with, I hope its not because of... but I knew it would trigger something more.

There probably is some things that I post that I genuinely believe which others mark down as conspiracy too but again it creates a conversation where others put me right.

The thing is any unknown is theory, its only after the fact of posting and debating that a conclusion of conspiracy, wrong or right in an individuals mind can be made... one person's knowledge isn't necessarily another person's current knowledge. So out of interest im open to theory but I'm also open to being wrong.

Whether you believe it or not you definitely lean that way. There are many examples to prove that from Bidens mic up his sleeve to what you posted after the riots about some of the rioters being left wing activists. You're quick to put forward stuff like that as proof of conspiracy but when challenged on it you're very skillful at giving yourself an out.

Every now and then though you have a little rant which shows what you really think with no get out clause, not so long ago you were posting about "The Russia Hoax"

Oh, I have to agree (2nd time) I definitely "lean that way" - there is definitely more of a Conservative side to me than Liberal but I wouldnt class myself as right wing. I'm not sure myself though if that is political or nature, there is a lot i agree and disagree with from both sides, if I had to put myself into a category (which you know I dislike) it would be centre right.

I definitely also find it harder to ignore the bs coming from the left than I do recognising the bs coming from the right, I try my best to stay balanced but as the occasional rant has proven it does get to me more from one side over the other.

[Derek27]

Both are unrealistic to expect will work and neither can be solved by blaming others.

It's unrealistic to expect people to stand two metres away to save someone's life?

[Trader Pat]

Oh, I have to agree (2nd time) I definitely "lean that way" - there is definitely more of a Conservative side to me than Liberal but I wouldnt class myself as right wing. I'm not sure myself though if that is political or nature, there is a lot i agree and disagree with from both sides, if I had to put myself into a category (which you know I dislike) it would be centre right.

I definitely also find it harder to ignore the bs coming from the left than I do recognising the bs coming from the right, I try my best to stay balanced but as the occasional rant has proven it does get to me more from one side over the other.

If I had to label myself I'd probably say I was centre left... now all we need to do is find somebody who is centre centre!

[Derek27]

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is sane?

Taking the word of the mainsteam media and Government as the only truth despite obvious exaguration, propaganda and statements with no factual basing.
People refusing to do their own research, listen to unbiased journalists/scientists or look at things from a logical perspective such as 2020 death totals being only slightly above average vs the last 30 years.
NHS shutting down Nightingales and ignoring applications from backup/retired NHS staff rather than running both simultaneously with diagnosing and treatments for bigger killers than Covid still going ahead.
Restrictions which limit healthy exercise and no talk of nutrition.
The mission everyone has chosen to accept, the mad rush to create the elixir of life silver bullet to allow 85 year old care home residents to live longer.
Shaming and hoping fellow humans get fined or locked up for doing natural activities such as meeting family, driving to go for a walk and not wearing a plastic bag over their respiratory system.
Trying to force a basically untested drug injection on everyone, even millions of healthy people who have no reason to have it and there being no guarantee it evens works.
Censoring and criminalising the truth such as people videoing hospitals wards or protesting.

Remember the 388 figure. In the UK 388 out of millions of under 60s with no known underlying health conditions died WITH Covid, so in the worst case the survival rate was at least 99.993% which I imagine is just a normal rate under any circumstances

You're talking complete bollocks again. It's your arguments that lack any factual basing, not the mainstream beliefs. There are no bigger killers than Covid at the moment. There is no restriction to exercise, you can go out on a ten-mile run if you want to and talking about eating fruit and veg is not going to make a dramatic difference to the present situation. The vaccines have been thoroughly tested to the same standard as they would have been outside of crisis. If somebody broke into your house and started filming the interior you'd call the police - don't know why a hospital can't do the same!

[jamesg46]

Oh, I have to agree (2nd time) I definitely "lean that way" - there is definitely more of a Conservative side to me than Liberal but I wouldnt class myself as right wing. I'm not sure myself though if that is political or nature, there is a lot i agree and disagree with from both sides, if I had to put myself into a category (which you know I dislike) it would be centre right.

I definitely also find it harder to ignore the bs coming from the left than I do recognising the bs coming from the right, I try my best to stay balanced but as the occasional rant has proven it does get to me more from one side over the other.

If I had to label myself I'd probably say I was centre left... now all we need to do is find somebody who is centre centre!

I think we both already worked out which side of centre we both were, nice that we never managed to let that bother us during our conversations.