Yes or No: COVID mandates and restrictions were the biggest overreaction in history

The 40% infected is the -best- estimate of infections so far. Simply dismissing all data as "only estimates" means that any piece of modeling is totally useless. Obviously that's irrational.

Models are only estimates. They are NOT data, any scientist will tell you this. Yes, most modeling is totally useless unless it can be closely coupled to the related data and shown to be correct. That is not irrational, that is real science, something you are not familiar with.

1.) ^Again you have pushed back against my analysis, calling it "wild assumptions," and then tried to push an even wilder, less substantiated hypothesis to refute it.

2.) I don't think there is any evidence that social distancing doesn't work, lastly. There is really no doubt that the timecourse of COVID was altered by the social distancing measures taken in the USA. On the margin, specific policies may not move the needle that much, but even the papers you cited to me agree that social distancing slows the spread of the disease. (I am not particularly concerned about the power of "full lockdowns" as that was not a primary mode of suppression in the USA).

1.) Your "analysis" involves making up numbers and hand-waving facts about your made up assumptions; that is NOT analysis, that is delusion.....

2.) No, those papers DO NOT indicate SD was the reason, one of them speculated it was; assumptive speculation is NOT PROOF!

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Harambe wrote:

You agree we don't have evidence about long term COVID damage yet, no?

We should be careful if we don't know about long term effects! How can we know? ;)

All I'm saying is you can't claim that not having evidence is reason to fear the vaccines but also reason to not fear the virus.

That's directly conflicting!

Ok, know you are just showing how much of a dumb troll you are. A virus that does not get young people sick is not going to cause long term health consequences; for them the concerns over mRNA tech greater than the risk of getting a covid cold.

Well, then a vaccine that doesn’t make them sick should be of no concern either! It’s just a piece of mRNA like what’s in that no-concern virus.

You’re almost getting why this line of argument doesn’t work for you.

I never made up numbers. I posted the highest quality estimates we could find. We cannot go and test everyone daily for COVID so we will never get the certainty you want (and even if we did you’d scream about false positives lol).

If you demand “PROOF” for everything I say then all of your theories are even weaker. You have posted no “PROOF” for a higher attack rate or change in IFR over time.

We can never “know” anything 100%. Most things in life we must take incomplete evidence and make a decision.

I have provided much more evidence to support my ideas than you.

The paper operates from the assumption that -something- caused cases to fall after the first wave. Government lockdowns may not have been it. Other mandates and self-imposed distancing seem to be the next most likely candidate. Note the experts you cite do not assume the virus magically decided to stop spreading before coming back again. They assume there was an impact from human behavior - I.e. some form of mitigation.

If all you can do is argue epistemology then you’re basically ceding my points.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Harambe wrote:

HCQ doesn't work

Long term effects of COVID in health people are real and documented.

The vaccine is safer than getting COVID.

Experts are not taking tons of money from vaccine manufacturers. Most professors would kill for a little industry funding to smooth over the NIH grant cycles.

Taking a bunch of uncontrolled supplements likely poses a greater risk to long term health than the mRNA vaccines ;)

Based on what evidence? Are you saying that Vitamin D supplements are more dangerous than mRNA tech? Are you an idiot?

There is a documented risk of toxicity from Vitamin D

Careful dosing controls it but like most supplements it carries risks of toxicity.

The real issue with supplements is they are poorly regulated and often impure. People have gotten lead poisoning from them, etc. I don’t think there’s any lead in the mRNA vaccine last I checked.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Ok, know you are just showing how much of a dumb troll you are. A virus that does not get young people sick is not going to cause long term health consequences; for them the concerns over mRNA tech greater than the risk of getting a covid cold.

Well, then a vaccine that doesn’t make them sick should be of no concern either! It’s just a piece of mRNA like what’s in that no-concern virus.

You’re almost getting why this line of argument doesn’t work for you.

No, this is not the same no matter how much you try to claim it is. There has been plenty of real scientific concern expressed about mRNA tech and autoimmune disease, particularly in the young whom have much longer timeframes for these sorts of things to develop.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Based on what evidence? Are you saying that Vitamin D supplements are more dangerous than mRNA tech? Are you an idiot?

There is a documented risk of toxicity from Vitamin D

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108

Careful dosing controls it but like most supplements it carries risks of toxicity.

The real issue with supplements is they are poorly regulated and often impure. People have gotten lead poisoning from them, etc. I don’t think there’s any lead in the mRNA vaccine last I checked.

Yes, you can take toxic levels of most things. This claim is absurdly ridiculous. The body easily handles modest Vit D doses daily. You are grasping at tiny straws.

Cases always fall after the peak. That is natural; nothing goes exponentially forever. Seriously, you are just making up excuses. The mitigations did not do much of anything, and there is no evidence they did.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

No, this is not the same no matter how much you try to claim it is. There has been plenty of real scientific concern expressed about mRNA tech and autoimmune disease, particularly in the young whom have much longer timeframes for these sorts of things to develop.

No there hasn’t. Maybe among some crackpot anti-vaxxers. Besides. As you like to say. It’s only assumptions. Not proof!!

Therefore, we aren’t allowed to care.

(Also plenty of scientific concern about Covid long term — kids do get symptomatic infections don’t forget)

The problem is every argument you use can be turned against you. You need a new tactic

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Well, then a vaccine that doesn’t make them sick should be of no concern either! It’s just a piece of mRNA like what’s in that no-concern virus.

You’re almost getting why this line of argument doesn’t work for you.

No, this is not the same no matter how much you try to claim it is. There has been plenty of real scientific concern expressed about mRNA tech and autoimmune disease, particularly in the young whom have much longer timeframes for these sorts of things to develop.

Yes it’s pretty much the same. Unless you’re a person that has a PEG allergy.

We’ve been through this. Virus is higher dose and more systemic than the vaccines. Also has more epitopes for possibly cross reactivity. If your fear is autoimmunity the virus is much much much worse than the vaccine. There are strong casual signals for COVID-19 and other viral mediated autoimmunity.

Years of work - some good reviews:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Cases always fall after the peak. That is natural; nothing goes exponentially forever. Seriously, you are just making up excuses. The mitigations did not do much of anything, and there is no evidence they did.

New levels of epistemological madness:

“Cases always fall after the peak”

Well, it wouldn’t be a peak if they didn’t!

The key is what causes the peak, if I may educate you. Considering COVID came roaring back 3-4 times in most places in the USA the peak was not driven by immunity. Aka people were still vulnerable to infection, etc etc my whole argument follows.

ROFL 2600 from the top rope.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Based on what evidence? Are you saying that Vitamin D supplements are more dangerous than mRNA tech? Are you an idiot?

There is a documented risk of toxicity from Vitamin D

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108

Careful dosing controls it but like most supplements it carries risks of toxicity.

The real issue with supplements is they are poorly regulated and often impure. People have gotten lead poisoning from them, etc. I don’t think there’s any lead in the mRNA vaccine last I checked.

There is a documented risk of toxcicity from Water. People have gotten parasites from water. Are you saying water is more dangerous than the vaccine?

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Cases always fall after the peak. That is natural; nothing goes exponentially forever. Seriously, you are just making up excuses. The mitigations did not do much of anything, and there is no evidence they did.

New levels of epistemological madness:

“Cases always fall after the peak”

Well, it wouldn’t be a peak if they didn’t!

The key is what causes the peak, if I may educate you. Considering COVID came roaring back 3-4 times in most places in the USA the peak was not driven by immunity. Aka people were still vulnerable to infection, etc etc my whole argument follows.

The virus will peak out when it burns through a susceptible population during a certain period. When conditions change, such as when winter or hot summer heat forces people indoors to turn on circulating air systems, those getting sufficient viral loads change and you may get another peak if yes, herd immunity, is not yet reached. Everything you have said is still just your assumption; remember your assumption is not data nor an expert assumption. The fact that things peaked out and then returned is not evidence that mitigation efforts worked but only that environments changed.

Virus is higher dose and more systemic than the vaccines."

If someone has a widespread systemic infection maybe? Young healthy people are not getting sick so they are not getting systemic spread of the virus. This is ridiculous, you are using an arguments that makes sense for elderly people who wanted to avoid the sever infection that may lead to long term bad things, but I am talking about young people with no infection that is severe or systemic...this is not going to lead to auto-immune disease. Also, viral infections tend to kill cells and do damage, but the mRNA tech is forcing pathogen production from healthy cells that remain healthy afterwards; we do not have a good handle on the impacts of this over the long term and the youth have no risk of these long term impacts from a virus that is not affecting them. You are attacking sideways where nobody is standing. Put your glasses back on.

Let it Rupp wrote:

There is a documented risk of toxcicity from Water. People have gotten parasites from water. Are you saying water is more dangerous than the vaccine?

The first remotely intelligent thing I’ve heard you say. How many drowning deaths a year? ;)

You guys are owning yourselves for me. Maybe the automation revolution isn’t all bad.

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

The virus will peak out when it burns through a susceptible population during a certain period. When conditions change, such as when winter or hot summer heat forces people indoors to turn on circulating air systems, those getting sufficient viral loads change and you may get another peak if yes, herd immunity, is not yet reached. Everything you have said is still just your assumption; remember your assumption is not data nor an expert assumption. The fact that things peaked out and then returned is not evidence that mitigation efforts worked but only that environments changed.

Ok so we are allowed to build big theories of transmission with no “PROOF” but if I say “people staying away from other people might have slowed down spread” I am an idiot.

Glad we’ve cleared this up.

Plenty of experts think mitigation’s help to varying degrees. Even the experts you cited think social distancing helps, just not lockdowns! But what do they know. We are all just making assumptions.

The LFH epistemology: “anything that is not absolute Truth is literally the same quality of evidence”

Everything you’ve posted is just assumptions with no PROOF -> to quote someone we all know ;)

At least 2600 had some evidence to support their idiotic, baseless, dogmatic assumptions.

You.... just words.

Hilarious thing on the radio after the Celtics game. A doofus Wilford Brimley sound alike actor comes on saying "My family's lived in this town for six generations. So when covid hit, we knew we had to get the vaccine when it was our turn".

The propaganda machine is running on fumes if that's the best they can do. They should get a Fauci sound alike to tell us about nudging up the herd immunity number. A suitable candidate can be found at any homeless shelter in Queens.