Should Covid-19 Vaccines be Mandated?

Phite

Argument Topic: Lockdown was stupid.

If you want to protect the elderly, lock down the elderly!!

This was so -backwards . . .

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hi Phite welcome to debateisland. Waves :)

@Phite

Why do you think the lock down was a bad idea?

Phite

So, exactly what is the rationale for taking an experimental injection that doesn't prevent infection or transmission?

Phite

@Dreamer

Who was being protected by a lockdown?

Phite

@Dreamer

Very well, then.  My point that lockdowns were ridiculous will stand.

anarchist100

Phite said:

@Dreamer

Very well, then.  My point that lockdowns were ridiculous will stand.

Yes, even a point which stands on nothing can remain standing against no opposition.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am sorry to have to tell you this but you are begging the question.

@Phite

The covid-19 vaccine is safe and effective. The lockdowns saved many lives.

Graph from sciencebased medicine.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/isthatbad/

"Reuters has reported on international studies that have determined that lockdowns potentially have saved millions of lives here ."

"but evidence also suggest that stringent but temporary restrictions, could actually benefit the economic recovery because they reduce the spread of the disease. The International Monetary Fund, for example, determined here that while lockdowns “impose short-term costs” they may lead to “a faster economic recovery." reuters 2020

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lockdowns-idUSKBN2842WS

Phite

Argument Topic: Safe and effective? Effective at what?

Are you aware that even the experimental injection manufacturer has not made that claim.  And he didn't make that claim because it would have been dishonest.  Why don't you do some research into what's been claimed by the manufacturer?

Also, why don't you define "immunity"?  I believe you've forgotten that particular definition.

And maybe you'll be the one who can explain the moronic strategy of locking down everyone in order to protect the elderly and weak when locking down the elderly and weak would have sufficed.  Simple logic . . .

Those studies use the words "suggest" and "could" and "may."  You have to watch out for that kind of "surety."

GuranshSingh

Argument Topic: Covid 19 vaccine should be mandated ?

I strongly agree with the post!
Covid cases have been increasing recently again, vaccines are the only hope to prevent covid. Some humans are vulnerable to viruses.
Covid is dangerous and vacancies do show a success rate. 

Phite

Argument Topic: The experimental injection does not stop you from getting covid.

@GuranshSingh
Who told you that the experimental injection prevents you from becoming infected with covid?

Phite

anarchist100 said:

Phite said:

@Dreamer

Very well, then.  My point that lockdowns were ridiculous will stand.

Yes, even a point which stands on nothing can remain standing against no opposition.

And now my point stands.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Vaccines prevent infection, hospitalizations, intensive care usage, and save lives.

@Phite

Hi Phite

I've been busy and you present extreme anti-vaxx points of view. Therefore, I am reluctant to answer you especially since you started with a combination of begging the question and just asking questions. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

"

"Of all the preventative treatments ever developed through science- and evidence-based medicine, vaccines have arguably saved more lives, prevented more illness and disability, and in general alleviated more suffering than any single class of treatments or preventative measures throughout history." David Gorski"

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-activists-attack-vaccine-mandates/

I am also going to give a brief overview of the Internet and misinformation. Skeptics debunking misinformation are overwhelmed. This is because false news travels faster, broader, and deeper often in an order of magnitude.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-faster-true-stories-0308

Big tech algorithms serve up conspiracy theories for major profit in the attention economy. 

https://bigthink.com/the-present/off-the-edge-flat-earth/

There is simply no way to debunk every argument. By gish galloping and as Steven Bannon infamously said flooding the zone. Disinformation has the advantage. Gish gallop on social media is the equivalent of starting a fire every minute 24/7/365. Debunking is like using a water pistol to put out those fires. 

The disinformation dozen, just 12 people are responsible for 65% in 2021.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/07/19/de-platform-the-disinformation-dozen/?sh=46a7bfbe7378

Understand that when I cannot respond promptly, it is not a logic based victory but an overwhelm. I know this post is long but if you are open minded and serious you will read the links. I simply do not have time to respond to every one of your arguments. Thank you in advance for reading the links.

Phite

Argument Topic: It was medical fraud from the beginning.

You've been sold a lie.

Consider this event from the beginning.

The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" Tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.  You've been deliberately misinformed and successfully influenced to doubt real numbers. 

So, given what we now know about the PCR-test, and how it was set too high despite all of the "experts" involved, how should we respond to a 90% false positive rate?  And how do we respond to those who allowed the test to be set too high?

This is what someone needs to address because, if it stands, it means that every instruction given to you by your trusted medical authorities has come from known liars.

Anyone??

Phite

@Dreamer
We'll start slow, then.

Fauci: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Does anyone dispute that that quote was from Fauci?  Of course not.  So it's not misinformation . . .

2019-nCoV Markers (N1 and N2) • When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered negative if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves DO NOT cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct) AND the RNase P growth curve DOES cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct). • When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered positive for 2019- nCoV if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct). The RNase P may or may not be positive as described above, but the 2019-nCoV result is still valid. • When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the growth curves for the 2019-nCoV markers (N1, N2) AND the RNase P marker DO NOT cross the cycle threshold growth curve within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct), the result is invalid. The extracted RNA from the specimen should be retested. If residual RNA is not available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the re-tested sample is negative for all markers and RNase P, the result is invalid and collection of a new specimen from the patient should be considered. • When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the cycle threshold growth curve for any one marker (N1 or N2, but not both markers) crosses the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct) the result is inconclusive. The extracted RNA should be retested. If residual RNA is not available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the same result is obtained

 CDC 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

Does anyone dispute the fact that this came from the CDC?  Of course not. So it's not misinformation.  So, was it Fauci who was mistaken, or was it the CDC?  They both can't be right.  So . . .

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There are bots and paid troll farms.

@Phite

I am sorry that I do not have time to address your individual claims. I want to teach you how the Internet works first. Then, we can discuss details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_farm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/

Information overload is the key to spreading disinformation. Hype and sensationalism spread faster than fact facilitated by bots. Often, myths arrive months beforehand and the person dies from covid-19 before facts can arrive. Science and evidence arrive like a cure to a disease after the patient is already dead from misinformation.

https://skepticalscience.com/Tips-on-countering-conspiracy-theories-and-misinformation.html

I also recommend center for countering digital hate.

https://counterhate.com/

Phite

Argument Topic: That's not a rebuttal

@Dreamer
Indicating that you have no time to address my post is as silly as it is nonproductive.  It in no way addresses the conflicting quotes I've put in front of your eyes.  So, rather than explain to me how the internet works, explain how you reconcile that conflict between authority figures in your mind.  I mean, do you tell yourself that I've forged that document from the CDC, or that I've misquoted Fauci?  What other excuse could you use to dismiss what they've said, and how they contradict each other?

Is it possible you're having a bad reaction to being asked to reconcile conflicting quotes coming from your trusted sources?  Perhaps you feel betrayed . . .

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

I am sorry that I do not have time to address your individual claims.

@Dreamer

Why are you referring to Fauci's and the CDC's claims as "my claims?"

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Try the Cranky Uncle and Goviral! games. Take the denail 101x course.

I know almost nothing about you. Since you are a new user, April 15th, and only post on this thread I want to know that you are sincere before we begin. What is your favorite TV series? What is your political party? Please understand if you don't have a foundation of critical thinking than this is not a debate. See the below links to understand.

https://crankyuncle.com/game/

https://www.goviralgame.com/books/go-viral/play

https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UQx+Denial101x+1T2020/851dabd8ceef4734b57dce9d6d77b2d4/

https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Understand that debates are not democratic nor fair.

"the false idea that such “debates” are a fair and democratic method to settle a question" David Gorski on January 31, 2022

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/debate-me--debate-challenges-by-science-deniers-in-the-age-of-covid-19/

I am trying to empower you with critical thinking before we begin. Ultimately, you have to make the journey yourself, I am only a guide. I have already read all the links I have posted so it takes much less effort to post these then to even understand what you are saying and the point you are tying to make let along make an effective rebuttal.

This should be the last of the foundational critical thinking links. There are of course several books you should read too. Skeptics Guide to the Universe, The Death of Expertise, and Anti-Vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement.

I hope you understand and good luck in your journey.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I couldn't find the Fauci quote.

@Phite

You claim Fauci say something very specific using a lot of scientific jargon that is easy to misunderstand for most people. First, I cannot find the quote therefore I have no idea if this even true let alone a time stamp. If Fauci said this in 2020 for example there was a lot more unknown variables and the information could be simply obsolete.

"So the idea that positive tests with high Ct values are “invalid” and should be dismissed is overly simplistic.  " Fullfact

https://fullfact.org/health/cycle-threshold-values/

"PCR basics I know PCR, which stands for “polymerase chain reaction” and is a highly sensitive technique to amplify tiny quantities of specific DNA sequences." David Gorski on November 23, 2020

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-covid-19-casedemic/

I debunked your claims the best I could. Many seem to be zombies from 2020 that I didn't even realize people believed anymore.

I was an anti-vaxxer once and it was terrible. People used to ridicule me and I got sick a lot. Take care Phite people who believe in one conspiracy often believe in others. I am worried about you.

Phite

You're stalling!

It seems you become research-challenged when you know that what you'll see will cause you inner conflict.  Here is the video of Fauci stating in no uncertain terms that that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results.  Now you have no excuse for not understanding. 

 TWiV 641: COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

Now that we've got you all caught up on who said what, explain why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40 when infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci (Mr. Science) has indicated that anything over 35 will give meaningless results.  Do you secretly believe that when a guy like Fauci says "meaningless," he really means "meaningful"?  I would pity anyone who considers the difference between 35 and 40 to be medical jargon beyond the scope of their understanding. But in your case, you're simply pretending it's just too darn hard to understand because it presents you with a conflict.  It's the same with you pretending that the term "meaningless results" actually means "meaningful results" when coming from a medical official.

Anyway, now that you've seen the video, tell me why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40 when Fauci intimated that that's just ridiculous. You must have some thoughts concerning the contradiction between your trusted medical authorities.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

Why did the CDC say that?  Give it your best shot!!

And this:

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

I'm curious as to how you'll now deal with the facts from these people as well.

Phite

Why are you ignoring the factual quotes I've posted?

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”-- Dr. Fauci.

What did they mean by that?  Did all that sound like a bunch of really complicated scientific jargon to you? The FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40 (a matter of public record) while Dr. Fauci made clear that anything over 35 gives meaningless results--also a matter of public record.  You're just having difficulty processing the in-your-face contradiction.  And the CDC's claim: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens” is just another testament to the silliness of using the test in the first place.

Phite

So, did the FDA go against conventional knowledge by recommending that labs use a cycle-threshold of 40 when Dr. Fauci has stated that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will be meaningless?  Yes, they did.  I provided the video of Fauci stating exactly that.  Why are you pretending that you never heard him say it?

EDIT:  I see that the video I posted of Fauci--the one in which he clearly states that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results--has been removed.  Fauci wasn't spewing disinformation, and yet it was removed.  Why would anyone here want to censor Fauci?

TWiV 641: COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

And then did Dr. Fauci inexplicably remain quiet as a mouse when labs did just that?  Yes, he did.

If anyone can explain why the FDA's and Dr. Fauci's versions of reality concerning the PCR-test are so diametrically opposed to each other, this would be the time to do that.  Otherwise, the fact remains that Dr. Fauci and the FDA were totally oblivious to each other's statement--if you can believe that--leaving us to decide which one is lying.  Personally, I believe Dr. Fauci's assessment--that using a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results. I also believe that everyone can figure out what a cycle-threshold of 40 means about "case" reports in which there was no clinical observation. 

Of course, I could be wrong.  Perhaps the FDA was the one with a clue, meaning that a cycle-threshold of 40 was just right. 

So, who do you believe was telling the truth?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Thank you for posting the video. I now understand what your are talking about. :)

@Phite

"The more viral particles in a PCR test sample, the fewer cycles (or “zoom ins”) are required to detect the virus. The cycle threshold levels are the number of “zoom ins” conducted to find the virus."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-hoax-idUSL1N2PA0JO

First, scientists are human and make mistakes like any other human. Second, this is a very technical scientific debate. Deniers love to instill doubt where there shouldn't be by conflating a very technical and small disagreement between scientists on a very specific fact and jump to conclusions that the science is unsettled generally.

For example two evolution scientists might debate what family a specific organism belongs to. Next a creationist posts the debate and jumps to conclusions exclaiming look there is scientific debate, evolution is false!!!

Third, science is a self-correcting process. Many claims in the beginning of the pandemic made with the best scientific evidence are now obsolete and incorrect. Displaced by newer better techniques. 

Yes, there are some amount of false positives and negatives with any test, yet this is an example of impossible expectations or the perfect is the enemy of good. Conclusions, the PCR test are effective and we should use them. Thank you for the conversation.

Phite

@Dreamer

This is humorous.  Your contention is that the FDA didn't know that a cycle-threshold of 40 would produce meaningless results even though infectious disease expert Tony Fauci has clearly stated that anything over 35 would be meaningless.  And you're demonstrating your willingness to pretend that they were simply mistaken because of changing dynamics to do with the PCR-test.  But no.  There was never a time when a cycle-threshold of 40 was used to diagnose disease.

Explain your reluctance to hold one of them accountable for negligence.

For your edification:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Start with which ever one you wish to disprove first.

ZeusAres42

covid discussion in mid-2023 = obsolete. It's like debating about the black death

Phite

@ZeusAres42

Well sure!  What's a little medical fraud between humans and medical authorities?  We'll get over it, right?

But seriously, your "let bygones be bygones" approach to medical fraud indicates that you believe that time somehow neutralizes the effects of fraud, or that it's too late to worry about it.  You're so forgiving . . .

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I think we still need to unpack the events of 2020 and Jan 2021. Pandemic, George Floyd's murder, and capital hill riots.

@ZeusAres42

That is a lot of events to happen in about a year. The Kraken omicron sub-variant is still a pandemic and still mutating.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-nyc-forklift-transfers-victims-bodies-refrigerated-truck-temporary-morgue-2020-3?op=1

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Early testing saves lives.

@Phite

"A positive test early in the course of the illness enables individuals to isolate themselves – reducing the chances that they will infect others and allowing them to seek treatment earlier, likely reducing disease severity and the risk of long-term disability, or death." September 04, 2020

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/why-covid-19-testing-key-getting-back-normal

Covid-19 tests are flawed, but got better over time. Conspiracy thinking won't help any. Most of your posts are red herrings ignoring that testing saved lives and prevented hospitalizations. Early testing saves lives.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

"A positive test early in the course of the illness enables individuals to isolate themselves . . .

Covid-19 tests are flawed, but got better over time. Conspiracy thinking won't help any.

Isolate themselves?  Hmmm. This is the first time in medical history that the recommended treatment for an illness was to do absolutely nothing; that is, until it gets so bad that you can't breathe, and THEN get to the hospital.  You should try to not be fooled by medical advise just because it comes from an authority figure.

Also, to prove you're not a parrot, pull from the link you provided the segment that explains how the PCR-test "got better over time." 

But you're running from the question.  If Fauci knew that a PCR-test with a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 would spit out nothing but meaningless results, how is it that the FDA was ignorant of that fact?  And why didn't Fauci correct them when they decided to use a cycle-threshold of 40?  You didn't watch the Fauci interview I posted, did ya?

You must believe that, in medical speak, "meaningless results" actually means "meaningful results.  Otherwise, you'd have no problem understanding that when the FDA recommended that labs use a cycle-threshold of 40, that was contrary to what was known about the test.  I provided you with numerous links to other respected medical authorities that reflect Fauci's assessment. 

Why are you pretending you don't understand the difference between 35 and 40?

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

". . . you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

According to you, the PCR-test was tweaked or changed so that it CAN rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens, and tell you whether or not you're sick.  So, how was that accomplished?

ZeusAres42

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42

Well sure!  What's a little medical fraud between humans and medical authorities?  We'll get over it, right?

But seriously, your "let bygones be bygones" approach to medical fraud indicates that you believe that time somehow neutralizes the effects of fraud, or that it's too late to worry about it.  You're so forgiving . . .

@Phite

How did you get that from this:

ZeusAres42 said:

covid discussion in mid-2023 = obsolete. It's like debating about the black death

Maybe you should look a bit further than the end of your nose eh?

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

Maybe the USA is far behind other countries with regard to this pandemic. Seems at least plausible given Trump's delaying of action. However, in UK here and pretty much the rest of the modern world has moved on, and the attention is now on far more trying issues, that are much more worthy of our time.

Based on the best available scientific evidence covid is no different now than flu and is to be treated in the same way. End of story. Next topic, please?

Phite

ZeusAres42 said:

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42

Well sure!  What's a little medical fraud between humans and medical authorities?  We'll get over it, right?

But seriously, your "let bygones be bygones" approach to medical fraud indicates that you believe that time somehow neutralizes the effects of fraud, or that it's too late to worry about it.  You're so forgiving . . .

@Phite

How did you get that from this:

ZeusAres42 said:

covid discussion in mid-2023 = obsolete. It's like debating about the black death

Maybe you should look a bit further than the end of your nose eh?

Apparently, you have a time limit in mind when it comes to calling liars on their lies, even when the lies amount to medical fraud.  So, after we catch them lying to us, how long do you suggest we wait before we mindlessly consider it an obsolete subject?  Are you suggesting that a statute of limitations be applied when it comes to medical fraud?

If we don't talk about it, people might continue believing that the PCR-test distinguishes between covid and other viruses and pathogens when it doesn't.  Or, they might falsely believe that Fauci and the FDA are not diametrically opposed to each other in their assessment of a legitimate cycle-threshold when they most certainly were.  Looking past your nose is the key to seeing past it . . . 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hmmm, I didn't know that the covid-19 Arcturus was being compared to the flu. We need to prevent the next pandemic.

@ZeusAres42

I've found fully vaccinated people tend to get symptoms on par with a bad cold. Here's the problem, there are plenty of unvaccinated people who get the flu and don't die. Put another way vaccination for Arcturus is much higher than the flu last time I checked and yet people are still dying at a higher rate.

"COVID-19 could be considered a category two or three in the 'hurricane scale' of pandemics and that a more deadly pandemic, perhaps "100 times worse when it comes" could produce a "fatality rate of one in two"."

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200602/Could-the-next-pandemic-be-100-times-worse-than-COVID-19.aspx

We need an effective monitoring system.

 https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-next-pandemic/

Dreamer

Argument Topic: False analogy flu to covid-19.

@ZeusAres42

"Based on the best available scientific evidence covid is no different now than flu and is to be treated in the same way." ZuesAres42

Is the USA anyways in 2022 when the vaccine was widely available since May 2021 there was:

2022 USA:

Flu deaths:

5,000

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/

Covid-19 deaths:

 267,000

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/health/covid-death-reporting-2022/index.html

 I didn't spend that much time on the numbers making sure the timeline is correct, but still that's a 50 fold difference. Comparing flu to covid-19 is a false analogy in my opinion.

Dee

The covid debate is over , the threat from Covid is minimal you no longer have to mask up even in hospitals, I've had it and it and functioned as normal and didn't even know I had until I had to take a test .

The worst thing for me was the vaccine which had dreadful side effects , I will never take one again. Either way I've learned a lot during the whole Covid period not all good either .

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Wow what a turnaround from
"If you refused a vaccine in my country you could not go anywhere without a covid pass when restrictions lifted and of course the clowns who refused the vaccine wailed non stop about how their rights were being infringed upon, you and your type have zero right to go around insisting you have a right to mix with the aged and vulnerable without a vaccine that's the price you have to accept for your selfishness"

You'll never take a covid vaccine again...how selfish of you.  You shouldnt be allowed in public with everyone that has been boosted.

Phite

Argument Topic: But . . .

@MichaelElpers
But I recall Dr. Fauci telling me that the "vaccine" was a roadblock to the virus.  And Joe Biden was emphasizing the "fact" that if you take the "vaccine," you can't get covid.  So, if the elderly are "vaccinated," exactly how will Dee infect them? 

Also, since we're talking first shot, second shot, booster shot, booster shot, ect., when are you going to come clean and admit that, at best, it's a treatment.  And the funny thing is that you don't feel safe unless everyone and their brother takes the same continuous treatment that doesn't protect you. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I got covid-19 once was fully boosted and it was terrible much worse than the side effects.

@Phite

One problem is we will have different life experiences. After I got my first booster in 2021 I was casual towards the covid-19. Then, despite having a 2nd booster that targets Omicron I got really sick in fall of 2022 with Kraken. I basically lost two weeks of life. I should have taken an anti-viral, but I didn't know they could be used for mild to moderate cases.

In contrast the boosters had almost no side effects. That being said based upon my experience I am going to take covid-19 more seriously. As for the debate being over yes the anti-vaxxers win, at least in the USA the anti-vaxxers won.

"About 55.6 million people, or 16.7% of the U.S. population, have received an updated booster dose." cdc

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

I don't know how long vaccines protect people. If they got a first dose in Jan 2020 there might not be any protection. If I understand correctly that means only 16.7% of people are protected. This is dismally low.

Normally with measles and flu outbreaks there is this cycle of high and low vaccination. People have high vaccination, hardly anyone gets sick and people underestimate the viruses vaccination wanes. Next, outbreaks occur of measles and a severe flu season occurs and people die. Then, vaccination wax for a bit as people have recent memory from recent outbreaks and deaths, repeat.

This time a flood of disinformation and partisan divide causes very low covid-19 vaccination rates as well as other vaccination to decrease.

"Children and teen vaccination rates began plummeting with the onset of the pandemic, and as concerns surfaced around the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, some parents also began questioning the need for the long list of other vaccines recommended by public health officials." Gorski

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaxxers-rejoice-at-the-silver-lining-from-the-pandemic-spillover/

To answer your specific questions, the vaccine reduces chances of becoming sick, severity of illness, and chances of spreading to others. I am sad that anti-vaxxers have won victory after victory.

"The partisan divide over the country’s pandemic response has reinvigorated the anti-vaccine movement nationwide, with mostly Republican lawmakers in nearly 40 states backing bills to restrict Covid-19 vaccine mandates or vaccine passports." Lauren Gardner

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/14/anti-vax-groups-covid-victories-493482

Anyways it seems I am oddly part of the problem. That the more I respond which encourages Phite the more people become anti-vaxx. I don't plan on responding further at this point. Instead, I plan to reflect, reevaluate my strategy, and try to understand why it seems to be backfiring. Thank you all for the conversation.

MichaelElpers

@Phite

I was just pointing out Dee's hypocricy.

Yeah i agree with you they were wrong or lied quite often during the pandemic, but unfortunately because they have such control over the media its near impossible to find the receipts.

I remember the censorship of everyone who thought it was in a lab.  Then pivot, it could have been now that we believe we censored the fact that we contributed to gain of function and we believe the negative press may effect China.

You dont need to wear masks, o crap now you do which i never found to be proven especially when they never told the population when to wash or get new ones, allowing bad bacteria to lower immune systems.

Then we got vaccine makes you immune and you cant spread it.  Crap it doesnt give you immunity just makes it less severe got to change the definition of immunity, also you can spread it just not as likely.  Also recovery from the virus isnt good enough take our shot.

Get a booster every 6 months we see an immune response every time.  Well no sh*t you can get one everyday and get the same results.

In the end they could never be relied on to tell the truth. Big pharma has too deep of pockets.  I understand they cant know everything about a new virus, but then dont make definitive statements and shut down opposition.

We destroyed the economy when from the get go we could see the virus mainly effected those who were elderly or unhealthy.  Yet the entire time we could tell unhealthy people to exercise or eat better because that is fat phobic.

Dee

@MichaelElpers




No hypocrisy at all from me , you really do fail to comprehend simple statements , whys that?

"If you refused a vaccine in my country you could not go anywhere without a covid pass when restrictions lifted and of course the clowns who refused the vaccine wailed non stop about how their rights were being infringed upon, you and your type have zero right to go around insisting you have a right to mix with the aged and vulnerable without a vaccine that's the price you have to accept for your selfishness"

And? That's still my position and would be my position if another similar pandemic came about 

***You'll never take a covid vaccine again...how selfish of you***

But we don't have to , because there is no threat ,one doesn't even have to mask up in hospitals anymore 


.  ***You shouldnt be allowed in public with everyone that has been boosted.***

But I have had 3 vaccines with dreadful effects each time, vaccines are no longer required over here 

Phite

Argument Topic: One more time.

@Dreamer
I want you to focus on these three questions and just answer them.

First question:  Why did the FDA instruct labs to use a cycle-threshold of 40 with regard to the PCR-test when medical officials like Dr. Fauci claimed that a cycle threshold of anything over 35 will give you meaningless results?  I've provided you with both a video of Fauci making the statement and the various quotes from others explaining the limitations of the PCR-test as well as the CDC's own assessment that the test cannot rule out infection from other viruses and pathogens.

Second question: Was it the FDA or Dr. Fauci who was being dishonest or ignorant?  And if it was the FDA, why didn't Fauci speak up and correct them?  Not even curious?  Hmmm . . .

Third question: Whomever the is, why did they lie?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

The hypocrisy is your stance/support of the government mandates not how you are following them.

Ill spell out the hypocrisy:

1. You described not getting a vaccine as selfishness.  Boosters assist in vaccination process and you will not get one i.e. you are selfish.

2. You agree with the mandates up to the point you were willing to accept the vaccine but clearly would disagree with requiring boosters.

"But we don't have to , because there is no threat ,one doesn't even have to mask up in hospitals anymore"

This statement just shows you have no moral stance of your own. You strictly bow to authority.
Your following authority, i get it, but your stance on refusing boosters and agreeing with original mandates forcing others to get the original dont follow.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


The hypocrisy is your stance/support of the government mandates not how you are following them.

Nonsense , I totally supported the government stance , still do. Do you not realise the crisis is over

Ill spell out the hypocrisy:

1. You described not getting a vaccine as selfishness. 

It is 


 Boosters assist in vaccination process and you will not get one i.e. you are selfish.

There's no requirement for me to get one , government vaccine centres are now closed 

2. You agree with the mandates up to the point you were willing to accept the vaccine but clearly would disagree with requiring boosters.

Read above your Strawman fails 

"But we don't have to , because there is no threat ,one doesn't even have to mask up in hospitals anymore"

This statement just shows you have no moral stance of your own.

Nonsense , I always had a moral stance of my own on the issue. 


You strictly bow to authority.

I don't actually which is why I've taken legal action against the government and won ....twice 

You bow to your government and the Catholc Church,  you pay money to the church that supports child abusing priests 


Your following authority, i get it,

Yes I followed government rules on covid many are gone now who wished they did , I'm delighted they lost their lives through stupidity 

but your stance on refusing boosters and agreeing with original mandates forcing others to get the original dont follow.


Boosters are not required now you moron, I never forced anyone neither did government,  stop raving 

ZeusAres42

It appears there are several people on this thread that have no idea how the appeal to authority fallacy works. I am willing to bet my last penny that these are the words in their mind before they post: "You mentioned an authority figure. That's an appeal to authority, and that is fallacious. Therefore your argument is bad." Those of you with this reasoning are the ones that are making a fallacious error and it's called Argumentum ad Logicam (AKA the fallacy fallacy).

This also clearly reflects that they are confusing a reliable heuristic "deference to legitimate council experts" with "an appeal to authority" fallacy. These are two different things. I need to go out now and I will elaborate on this later, and hopefully be able to educate those of you lacking in this area. Hopefully, we can correct your confusion regarding these fallacies, how @Dee is actually behaving completely reasonably here, and so forth.

Phite

Argument Topic: Authorities . . .

@ZeusAres42

The CDC, the WHO, the FDA, and Mr. Fauci have all been spared the embarrassment of having to explain in a serious public forum why they sat back and allowed for the use of a test they knew would produce virtually nothing but false positives at a time when accurate data was of the essence.  They were clearly feigning ignorance of the limitations of the PCR-test for reasons that make sense only in the context of a calculated campaign to create a much greater number of "cases" than would otherwise exist.

Do you like being lied to?  Or perhaps you've concluded that that would be the last time one of them would try to deceive you.  But how reasonable is that conclusion?

Dee

@ZeusAres42


 @Dee is actually behaving completely reasonably here, and so forth


I try my best , its really tough as I've never come across a site  like it where id-ocy seems to be the norm 

ZeusAres42

@Phite

I don't follow politicians regarding scientific matters. I prefer to defer to science and scientists when it comes to scientific matters. Not politicians, media, or some random on the internet. Similarly, if I have symptoms I go to a Doctor; not ask a random on the internet with no background in medical science whatsoever, nor do I find a political or media person to give me advice.

And if my Doctor thinks I may need further investigation they will refer me to other experts AKA deference on on my Doctors part; nothing fallacious about this at all. The Doctor is acting completely reasonably and rationally here.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42


 @Dee is actually behaving completely reasonably here, and so forth


I try my best , its really tough as I've never come across a site  like it where id-ocy seems to be the norm 

@Dee, what I see is you realize this is not a binary issue. You're following the literature and empirical evidence, and thus making decisions based on those and updating them accordingly. Of course, any authority figure can be wrong, and hence why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally, and this is what I see with you. You are probably also (like me) sick of reading the same old arguments over and over again, that have been substantially refuted repeatedly. I and I don't think you want to go over this again like we did during the pandemic and just post-pandemic.

I also have no idea where people got the idea that the UK government mandated vaccines. This has never been the case in the UK. And it never will be. The only legislation I think was that for a certain amount of time, no one from another country could come into the UK unless they were fully vaccinated. This, however, has also been lifted I believe.

I have not got vaccinated either, and that's generally because I am now indifferent. The only people that appear to making a huge drama out of this are the government conspiracy theorists (no substance whatsoever either) and extreme activists. But these people to me now and pretty much the rest of the real world are not just like flat earthers (AKA just white noise in the background). These people are not really an issue anymore, and I find this whole covid topic now of no use whatsoever. In the real world, the rest of us are just getting on with our lives; we've moved on. 

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

If you notice i didnt accuse Dee of using an authority fallacy, more like being an authoritarian lacking in appreciation for others rights and liberties when he agrees with a government stance.

I.e he was fine with the government mandates when he wanted the vaccine and thought others should take it as well.  Called them selfish.

See but when he had a bad reaction and no longer feels boosters are worth it he no longer will take them.  Boosters are still recommended by the medical community but just arent mandated by the government.

I have a problem with individuals who support taking away freedom and liberties when it suits them and their idealogy.
Either your free to avoid the vaccine or you should be required to take every booster or medical treatment that lowers your chance to spread it. 

If there were no such mandates i was only arguing with information stated by Dee: "You could not go anywhere without a covid pass"

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Good piece Z. Elpers plays this strange game of pretending previous personal stances and thinking  relating to the pandemic should remain the same or one is a hypocrite , the chap pretends that all situations remain static and do not evolve and change over time.

the rest of us are just getting on with our lives; we've moved on. 

That's about the size of it , Elpers though has an axe to wield like all conspiracy theorists