The sky did spend 2017-2021 constantly falling.
For the record, just so there's no misunderstanding, Trump REALLY fucked up on the covid pandemic
- Thread starter Politruk
- Start date
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
I never click on links. Not that I don’t trust this group of completely trustworthy individuals, but it’s a lot of extra work for me. Post a meme instead, I like pictures.
RobDownSouth
Oh Look....
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 75,346
So much Covid revisionism from the whackadoodle Maga conspiracy theorists in this thread.
SAD.
SAD.
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
We wore masks, social distanced, a lot of people took the shot…hmm, so you’re saying none of it worked.
I agree.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,588
In this thread, I officially condemn the fringe element of the left
Author: RoryN
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...ondemn-the-fringe-element-of-the-left.680925/
Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan & Jesse Jackson are racists and separatists.
Author: RoryNhttps://forum.literotica.com/thread...e-jackson-are-racists-and-separatists.717069/
Your turn, whackadoodle MAGAt racist.
We'll wait.
Claims that the virus was engineered[edit]
The scientific consensus "overwhelmingly conclude(s) that this coronavirus originated in wildlife."[90] Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 shows that it shares about 96% of its RNA with an RaTG13 coronavirus strain found in a bat,[note 7] and has mutations that are less likely to have been the byproduct of artificial selection; the scientific consensus continues to be that an animal is the most likely source of SARS-CoV-2.[92][93][94][95][96][97] The death rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 2%, and it's estimated that an average infected human can infect two and a half humans,[98] this reality runs contrary to the conspiracy as the whole point of a bioweapon is to kill people. Why the hell would the Chinese government want to piss off other governments by infecting their citizens and government officials?[99][100][101] At least with this conspiracy, it is somewhat realistic and would operate within the laws of physics, unlike the other conspiracies.Naturally, when conspiracy theorists are confronted about these contradictions, they say that yes, these government officials are being assassinated in the most attention-grabbing way possible, that would attract the imagination and alarm of the panicking public. It didn't help that Nobel-Prize-winner-turned-nutcase Luc Montagnier claimed that the virus was semi-synthetic based on genetic data analysis of the study.[102] The claim was quickly refuted by another analysis.[103][104] One study explicitly refuted the plausibility of laboratory origin due to similarities to recently evolved zoological versions of coronavirus.[105]
Yet a minority view is that of taking an accidental lab leak seriously. In this view, the virus was not a terrifying weapon, likely not engineered at all but just stored, though it could possibly have been of interest to the research and development of weapons. For example, one author of the "Proximal Origins" paper, Kristian Andersen, has claimed that a lab leak origin is "highly likely."[106] While "highly likely" is at odds with the general consensus, it's also true that the evidence does not allow conclusively ruling out a lab origin. However, as other researchers behind the paper point out, neither is there evidence anywhere near strong enough to base accusations on.[107] But that hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from making wilder claims and pointing fingers in a variety of directions.
Blaming Chinese scientists[edit]
Early indications during the pandemic showed that the first cluster of viruses may have originated from a "wet market
Zero Hedge went even further. Claiming that the virus was spreading because it was a "weaponized version of the coronavirus" originally from Canada, Zero Hedge sought to seek out who was responsible for this coronavirus. So they cobbled together some criteria for narrowing down who "created" the virus from a job posting on the Wuhan Institution of Virology's website. Using these random criteria, they focused on one Chinese scientist in particular who was focused on bat virus infections and immunity and claimed that he created SARS-CoV-2. At that point, they decided to doxx the scientist, because of fucking course they would.[113] This was enough to get them permanently suspended from Twitter.[114]
Why did Zero Hedge think the virus came from Canada? Because of yet another bullshit rumor: in July 2019, virologist Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband, and some of her students from China were removed from Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory
Memes spread online on how the Wuhan Institute of Virology's logo is similar to that of "Umbrella Corporation", a shady agency responsible for making the virus that starts the zombie apocalypse in the Resident Evil
On February 24, 2020, Rush Limbaugh repeated the bullshit that COVID-19 was a weaponized "ChiCom[note 8] laboratory experiment" on his radio program. Unusually for a crank, he actually downplayed the risks, actually reporting the correct approximate survival rate right of 98% (the mortality rate of COVID-19 on February 24, 2020 was around 2.3%).[117] However, he mistakenly said that this was "a far lower death statistic than any form of influenza" (the mortality rate of influenza in the United States is usually 0.1%).[118] More to his style, he declared that "the coronavirus is the common cold" for some reason, and politicized COVID-19 media coverage by complaining that the "Drive-By Media" was "weaponizing" COVID-19 "as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump".[119][note 9]
Limbaugh's bullshit was repeated by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, both accusing the media and the Democratic Party of "weaponizing fear".[121] This is ironic coming from a cable news network notorious for exploiting fear.[122]
In fact, FOX news has spread so much bullshit from its relatively prominent media position downplaying the virus to the point where network insiders privately worry that should a strong connection be made between Fox News disinformation and deaths, they could be sued and held liable.[123][note 10]
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
Remember when scientists thought eggs were bad for us? Then fat was bad? Then carbon credits would clean up the environment? Then you didn’t need your tonsils and should have them removed? Then drinking 8 glasses of water a day is what everyone needs?Blaming Chinese scientists[edit]
Early indications during the pandemic showed that the first cluster of viruses may have originated from a "wet market" in Wuhan.[108] In a pre-print paper that was quickly withdrawn after appearing on ResearchGate, Chinese scientists Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao proposed that the virus might have actually come from either the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, both of which are near the wet market in question.[109] Always willing to spread bullshit on anything health related, the "story" was picked up by the Daily Mail with the usual alarmist headline.[110] Even the Daily Mirror,couldn't help JAQing off on the subject as well.[111] On US shores, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) repeated this bullshit on Fox News and subsequently accused the Chinese government of lying about COVID-19.[112]
Zero Hedge went even further. Claiming that the virus was spreading because it was a "weaponized version of the coronavirus" originally from Canada, Zero Hedge sought to seek out who was responsible for this coronavirus. So they cobbled together some criteria for narrowing down who "created" the virus from a job posting on the Wuhan Institution of Virology's website. Using these random criteria, they focused on one Chinese scientist in particular who was focused on bat virus infections and immunity and claimed that he created SARS-CoV-2. At that point, they decided to doxx the scientist, because of fucking course they would.[113] This was enough to get them permanently suspended from Twitter.[114]
Why did Zero Hedge think the virus came from Canada? Because of yet another bullshit rumor: in July 2019, virologist Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, her husband, and some of her students from China were removed from Canada's National Microbiology Laboratoryin Winnipeg over a "policy breach". Not only did social media rumors link COVID-19 to these individuals, but baseless claims were made that Dr. Qiu and her husband were part of a "spy team" that had sent "pathogens to the Wuhan facility", and that her husband "specialised in coronavirus research".[115]
Memes spread online on how the Wuhan Institute of Virology's logo is similar to that of "Umbrella Corporation", a shady agency responsible for making the virus that starts the zombie apocalypse in the Resident Evilvideo game series. But the logo that inspired the meme belongs to a different company altogether (namely Shanghai Ruilan Bao Hu San Biotech Limited, located in Shanghai, 500 miles from Wuhan).[116]
On February 24, 2020, Rush Limbaugh repeated the bullshit that COVID-19 was a weaponized "ChiCom[note 8] laboratory experiment" on his radio program. Unusually for a crank, he actually downplayed the risks, actually reporting the correct approximate survival rate right of 98% (the mortality rate of COVID-19 on February 24, 2020 was around 2.3%).[117] However, he mistakenly said that this was "a far lower death statistic than any form of influenza" (the mortality rate of influenza in the United States is usually 0.1%).[118] More to his style, he declared that "the coronavirus is the common cold" for some reason, and politicized COVID-19 media coverage by complaining that the "Drive-By Media" was "weaponizing" COVID-19 "as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump".[119][note 9]
Limbaugh's bullshit was repeated by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, both accusing the media and the Democratic Party of "weaponizing fear".[121] This is ironic coming from a cable news network notorious for exploiting fear.[122]
In fact, FOX news has spread so much bullshit from its relatively prominent media position downplaying the virus to the point where network insiders privately worry that should a strong connection be made between Fox News disinformation and deaths, they could be sued and held liable.[123][note 10]
Member berries.
Kitty_so_frisky
Santa’s Naughty Girl
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2023
- Posts
- 12,006
Masks are/were VERY effective when used properly, which, in most cases, they were not. Well-fitted N-95 and KN-95 masks are reasonably effective in reducing risk of the wearer becoming infected with the virus, but are much more effective when the person with COVID-19 is wearing them, and much much more effective when both parties wear them. There are two problems with that though: 1) The person who already has C19 may not know they have it, and 2) There’s a good chance they caught C19 because they were unwilling to take such precautions to avoid it in the first place. Masks worked for the people who used them properly. I have a weakened immune system and took whatever reasonable precautions I could, and to the best of my knowledge, I have not caught it since its presence was announced in the states. Masks only would have worked for the general population if EVERYONE wore them. Supply was an issue in the very beginning, but Trump’s attitude and lack of action did a ton of damage to our ability it fight it off as well.
As for vaccines, they are not magical invincibility shields, but they have been proven to reduce chances of infection, and especially reduce the severity and length of illness if infected, which also reduces transmission. They’re not perfect, but they have saved many from more severe cases, hospitalization and death.
Other precautions like social distancing and ventilation have also been proven effective in significantly reducing transmission, both by using scientific methods to measure particulates and in real-world practice as well. All these tools we eventually had at our disposal could have been much more effective and saved countless more lives if the general public actually USED them. Other countries handled the pandemic much better than the US.
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
I’m confused why you’re posting after me again when I told you before to stop being weird. You avoided me for a very long time after being swatted, yet here you are again.In this thread, I officially condemn the fringe element of the left
Author: RoryN
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...ondemn-the-fringe-element-of-the-left.680925/
Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan & Jesse Jackson are racists and separatists.
Author: RoryN
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...e-jackson-are-racists-and-separatists.717069/
Your turn, whackadoodle MAGAt racist.
We'll wait.
Do you need some attention?
UltraChad
Virgin
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 2,671
Reasonable to a psychotic control freak authoritarain.
Yet that is EXACTLY what it was used for.
Yea? But I didn't say what the Democrats did was Hitlarian....I said they wish it was. It's not the same.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,588
You really are an idiot. Nothing about lockdowns or mask mandates does that. It does not even tend to. Never go there!The phrase "science was wrong before" (or variations thereof, such as "science has been wrong in the past", "science is only human", "science keeps changing", or "science is not infallible") is a fallacious technique used in order to reject or disparage a current scientific consensus, especially on topics such as evolution or global warming. It usually works like this:
The "science was wrong before" gambit exemplifies both the continuum fallacy and the nirvana fallacy. It is a sister-fallacy to "media was wrong before".
Contents
- 1Flaws
- 2Uses and examples
- 3Realism versus anti-realism in science
- 4See also
- 5External links
- 6Notes
- 7References
Flaws[edit]
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd edition, Thomas Kuhn
The scientific method.
Usually (or at least often) "science was wrong before" is used to defend the existence of a disproven phenomenon — alternative medicine, perpetual motion, crank theories of everything, faster-than-light travel… the list is really endless for where this has been applied before. The usual examples of science being wrong (like the geocentric worldview that "science" used to hold) were theories that were in no way disprovable at the time, much in the way that string theory cannot be readily disproved at this time. Many alternative medical practices, on the other hand, have been carefully shown to be utterly ineffective in one study after another — no additional information will suddenly contradict these results. When used like this, the "science was wrong before" trope is effectively like suggesting that our observations that gravity is an attractive force are wrong, because one day in the future we might just see something go floating up instead of falling down, and therefore homeopathy works.
So while it is true that several believed-to-be-true theories turned out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that theories that have already been proven wrong might suddenly turn out to be right, or that all theories with an overwhelming scientific consensus will necessarily turn out to be wrong.
Missing the point[edit]
This is pretty easy to understand.[note 1]
The logic behind this argument is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong". To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one, but with some extensions, caveats, or alternatives.[note 2] Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings, ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them. This is well exemplified in Thomas Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions, who's work has been co-opted by many cranks.
For example, take geocentrism. One of the strongest arguments against heliocentrism was the apparent lack of stellar parallax (or an apparent shift in the position of the stars from season to season). Because there was no evidence, Greek astronomers assumed either that the stars were fixed in the sky (geocentrism), or that they were so far away that parallax was not noticeable. For almost 2000 years, there was no evidence for parallax, and it was not until the 1800s that parallax was proven to be correct and geocentrism soundly quashed.
Another example: the quantum theory doesn't explain gravity, but it does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy; it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs.
That science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science builds upon itself, whereas pseudoscience rails on one claim and doesn't let up, despite evidence to the contrary.[note 3] These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no differentiation between different sciences and the uncertainties and overlaps associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab — like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong", but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong,[2] is a form of being wronger than wrong.
Basic logical flaws[edit]
But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at even the basic logical level. First, this phrase can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and whether neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their own selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. (If hypotheses and theories which have been tested time and time again and been proven correct can be "wrong", what does that say about unproven, or even disproven, claims?) Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims, at all. But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!" If "science has been wrong", and this disproves the effectiveness of earwax, doubly does it disprove the effectiveness of ear candles.
For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.
The Bible was wrong before[edit]
According to some Christians, the Old Testament was wrong before and needed to be "corrected" by the New Testament. Hence, if one accepts the premise of the "Science Was Wrong Before" argument, then one would have to conclude that The Bible cannot be trusted because it, too, was wrong before.If you point this out to Christians who say "science was wrong before," they might respond by asserting that The Bible should not be held to the same standard as science.
Uses and examples[edit]
.jpg)
Isaac Newton's formulation of gravity was superseded by general relativity, therefore my water powered car works… wait, what?
- The "science was wrong before" canard seems to be particularly popular among alternative medicine woomeisters, as they can easily point to any failed medication or treatment (Vioxxis one of the most commonly used,[4] but thalidomide
works well too[5]) and say "Look, science was wrong before, so buy my quackery!" Some woo-meisters take this to extreme lengths and reject the scientific method entirely.[note 4]
- Creationists usually use it in reference to the Piltdown Man — though this is rife with many problems, not least of all the fact that it was exposed as a hoax by science and not by, say, creationists.
- Free energy types love it as well. It tends to play into cold fusion and other free energy suppression conspiracy theories.
- The "science was wrong before" gambit appeared when neutrinos were suspected of travelling faster than light. Homeopaths played it perfectly straight,[3] while some Above Top Secret posters seemed to indicate it would change our thinking of UFOs and other phenomena.[6]
- Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, around the Middle Ages, Western scientific consensus endorsed and relied on Biblical revelation and Christian tradition — but then it got hijacked by godless materialist Enlightenment atheists. So "science" (whatever that means) was right before. But then became wrong. But will become right again when Creation "Scientists" triumph due to the self-correcting nature of "science". So "science" changes. QED.
Failing at even being fallacious[edit]
Oftentimes, extremely factually-challenged (or intellectually dishonest) cranks will spin an urban legend, myth, or misinterpretation of a historical event as a case where "Science was wrong before". These are cases where not only is the logic flawed, but the "examples" themselves are factually incorrect:- "Science was wrong before" is often found alongside the Galileo gambit. The obvious problem here is that Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, not by "science". There was also the crucial detail that Galileo had evidence to back up his ideas.
- In many cases, old theories were not proven wrong, but only shown to be incomplete. For example, the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't prove classical or Newtonian mechanics entirely wrong, but it did show that classical mechanics did not hold true in every case.
- A common talking point among global warming deniers is the so-called prediction of "global cooling" in the 1970s. There were in fact scientists who argued for global cooling; however, a survey of the literature as a whole shows that the majority of papers published even back then argued for warming.[7][8]
- Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb is often invoked to handwave away any concerns about overpopulation or sometimes even all environmental issues.
- Anti-environmentalists in general love to abuse this gambit. Need to write a good bullshit tract on global warming? Dig up old denialist literature on any recent environmental problem (acid rain, DDT, ozone depletion, take your pick) and use it to announce that "science was wrong before." Anything by S. Fred Singer should do the trick.
Realism versus anti-realism in science[edit]
While "science was wrong before" is most often used in service of science denialism, though superficially similar, it should not be confused with a traditional argument found in the philosophy of science that is leveled against scientific realism, namely, the pessimistic meta-induction from past falsification of accepted scientific theories, which roughly goes like this: Since our best scientific theories have in the past been shown to be largely false, it is probable that our current accepted scientific theories are in large measure false. Therefore, we ought to be scientific anti-realists.[9] The realist vs. anti-realist debate concerns whether the theoretical entities (e.g. micro-physical particles, fields, etc.) postulated by our best scientific theories correspond to real entities or whether said entities, and the wider mathematical framework in which they are situated, are merely empirically adequate (i.e., computational tools via which we make successful predictions).[10]Needless to say, this debate in the philosophy of science is much more complex and nuanced than shouting "Phlogiston! Hah, where is your science now?"
UltraChad
Virgin
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 2,671
Name calling doesn't make you any less laughable.
Yet it DID. It was the single most economically damaging event in living memory.
The more locked down and restricted, the more damaged.
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
I forgot to say thank you for posting all of that instead of a link.
If our knowledge, at the time of a scientific opinion, is limited, then the opinion should be stated as a hypotheses, not a fact. The hysteria induced by telling people masks and social distancing kept covid at bay created too much social destruction. Scientists didn’t know, yet they mandated behavior based on what they thought, while also discrediting other scientists with a different viewpoint. In the end, it hurts the credibility of scientists and the government. Was that worth it? I don’t believe it was, but I do believe Americans will think twice before giving up all their rights like we did before.
Of course it was economically damaging -- that was unavoidable and entirely necessary, like shutting down a business when the building is on fire. But it was not subversive or revolutionary. After the pandemic, the same people were still in charge of the same system.
Last edited:
No, it contained too little infection. Stricter measures would have saved lives that were lost. There is no reasonable doubt on that point, now.
The American people did not give up any rights.
Back in the days when typhoid fever was a thing, there was no tyranny in quarantining an infected house under a typhoid flag. Nobody had any right to leave the house and spread the disease.
Last edited:
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,911
Did you have a good Thanksgiving? I hope you found some things to be thankful for.
UltraChad
Virgin
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 2,671
Red states avoided way more of it than blue states did.
So.....it was avoidable, you just had to not be psychotic tyrants.
And the red states lost more people to covid. That was not a wise bargain. "Live free or die!" never is.Red states avoided way more of it than blue states did.
So.....it was avoidable, you just had to not be psychotic tyrants.
UltraChad
Virgin
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 2,671
So?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590229623000199
It was the peoples bargain to make.
Spoken like an anti-American totalitarian control freak. A real Democrat.
Trump should deport all you mother fuckers to North Korea and Venezuela.
Similar threads
