• Study proves that COVID lockdowns did more harm than good

    From Flyguy@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 10:20:46 2022
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more
    harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as
    a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 11:28:32 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising infection rate is not appropriate.

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
    result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
    an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have instigated the regional lockdown measures
    we've seen in the US, those decisions are by governors and local officials. "Many people" can speak nonsense,
    even if it's a 1% effect, in a world of 7 billion people. Flyguy is well under 1% of that1%...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 14:06:22 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    You can't read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.

    When Ireland opened their schools, cases jumped. We certainly DO know that some restrictions were
    effective because there's good direct data, not just reviews of selected studies.

    The study doesn't refute any policy Biden is behind, nor any Fauci statements. It doesn't
    mention them at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 13:27:48 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:
    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising infection rate is not appropriate.

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
    result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
    an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

    OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed suicide because of it.

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
    Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have instigated the regional lockdown measures
    we've seen in the US, those decisions are by governors and local officials. "Many people" can speak nonsense,
    even if it's a 1% effect, in a world of 7 billion people. Flyguy is well under 1% of that1%...

    You can't read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Bloggs@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 15:20:55 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
    as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Wed Feb 2 15:58:36 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Thu Feb 3 00:09:27 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4-8608-4c4d03a8a014n@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, FlyTurd wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
    e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
    COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
    helpful:

    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and
    help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising
    infection rate is not appropriate.

    Yep. FlyTurd is an absolute utter retard.

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small
    benefit of policy, or if they result from policy applied wisely
    but compliance lacking,

    Exactly the most significant factor very likey IS lack of
    compliance and that is nearly 100% Trumper idiots.

    or from policy applied wisely to prevent
    an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily
    assigned zero probability).

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for
    months, EXCEPT
    for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have
    instigated the regional lockdown measures we've seen in the US,
    those decisions are by governors and local officials. "Many
    people" can speak nonsense, even if it's a 1% effect, in a world
    of 7 billion people. FlyTurd is well under 1% of that1%...

    FlyTurd is far less than that. His two firing neurons put him
    firmly in the Completely and utterly retarded TrumpTard camp. Their (infection)numbers are higher,...

    ...and their (intelligence) numbers are lower. Signifcantly lower.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 15:59:49 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:06:27 PM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    You can't read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.
    When Ireland opened their schools, cases jumped. We certainly DO know that some restrictions were
    effective because there's good direct data, not just reviews of selected studies.

    The study doesn't refute any policy Biden is behind, nor any Fauci statements. It doesn't
    mention them at all.

    The study speaks for itself: the polices advocated by Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci DON'T WORK!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 16:14:16 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
    result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
    an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

    OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed suicide because of it.

    That's harm due to a pandemic, not due to any particular lockdown policy. Folk can die/decide to quit/stay home
    without a policy of lockdown. Policy DOES have an effect on shipping handoffs at borders, but that's
    not covered in the article cited.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Fred Bloggs on Thu Feb 3 00:15:04 2022
    Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in news:34e1d8d2-37a3-46b7-b590-d9464c697258n@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, FlyTurd wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
    e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
    COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
    helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had
    little to no
    public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and
    social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence,
    lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a
    pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for
    months, EXCEPT
    for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing
    lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly
    obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models
    to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
    Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of
    others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that
    lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested
    weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones.
    The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're
    found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE
    SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required
    to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even think about arguing
    with them. Your little phony research paper written by bunch of
    CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.


    +1 And -890k for each of our nation's victims.

    FlyTurd could be more stupid... maybe in some other life... just
    not this one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to FlyTurd on Thu Feb 3 00:11:25 2022
    FlyTurd <soreass2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2860ae70-409b-46bf-8512-8b113f09166cn@googlegroups.com:

    OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses
    closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed
    suicide because of it.


    That may well be YOUR assertion, however, it is NOT the assertion of
    the article you cited, so your title for your post is what you got
    banged on, you stupid fuck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to FlyTurd on Thu Feb 3 00:29:11 2022
    FlyTurd <skankyass2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in news:66f01eb3-1b9f-4448-bec2-1022df4b0fb5n@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, FlyTurd wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/
    iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effe cts-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
    COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
    helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had
    little to n
    o public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and
    social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence,
    lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a
    pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for
    months, EXCE
    PT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing
    lockdown an
    d people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious.
    And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open
    our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine
    (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others
    with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that
    lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested
    weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones.
    The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're
    found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE
    SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required
    to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even think about arguing
    with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO
    Institute econo
    mists is easily refuted as garbage.

    Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID
    mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.


    Sorry, but you obviously did not read his posts.

    Lockdowns work. OURS did not because jackjawed total retards like
    you FAILED to comply and even publicly downplayed every abatement
    measure our civil nation's civil members put up.

    Only UNCIVIL, contrary dumbfucks following Donald John Trump's
    retarded intelligence devoid cult ignored EVERYTHING and THAT is why
    OUR numbers skew from other nations where the practices worked.

    You fucking retards fucked up when you voted for the idiot and you
    fucked up when you listened to his pathetic lies, and you fucked up
    in ANY assessment you spout off about concerning the whys and
    wherefores. You have zero basis in reality. Trump bent your brain,
    boy, and you are broken. In your case the jump was not that far.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com on Wed Feb 2 17:46:14 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
    as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    If you isolate forever, you're safe from infection. But eventually you
    have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance
    getting it and move on.

    The Chinese communist party seems to have other reasons to deploy
    universal tracking.

    --

    John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

    The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
    "Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 17:53:43 2022
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.
    If you isolate forever, you're safe from infection. But eventually you
    have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

    or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn't double/triple/quadruple
    vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn't and option because it means starving ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 18:27:53 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 8:27:52 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising infection rate is not appropriate.

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small benefit of policy, or if they
    result from policy applied wisely but compliance lacking, or from policy applied wisely to prevent
    an exponential rise in cases (because such a rise was arbitrarily assigned zero probability).

    The Washington Post report of this study - which has been posted here already - made the point that the study was of lockdowns in the US and Europe, where they tended to be introduced too late to be all that effective, and compliance was poor. Places
    like Australia, South Korea and New Zealand used them to more effect.

    OF COURSE, there was harm: the economy was shut down, businesses closed, schools closed, divorces jumped, and people committed suicide because of it.

    The Covid-19 epidemic motivated people to take their kids out of school, work from home (when they could) and get on one another's nerves. Lockdowns should have been a way of getting that to happen before the epidemic was rampant. Make no mistake - an
    epidemic is bad for the economy on it's own. Lock downs are way of minimising that damage by having people out of the economy for the shortest possible time (and not having as many of them get sick).

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Every business person wants customers in their shop right now. They tend not think of the consequences of those customers infecting one another.
    Biden and Fauci are paid to have better-informed opinions.

    Utter nonsense. Neither president Biden nor Dr. Fauci have instigated the regional lockdown measures
    we've seen in the US, those decisions are by governors and local officials. "Many people" can speak nonsense,
    even if it's a 1% effect, in a world of 7 billion people. Flyguy is well under 1% of that1%...

    You can't read: many people thought that lockdowns were ineffectual EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci. I said NOTHING about the two ordering it, but they sure as hell endorsed them.

    Many people think the earth is flat. Flyguy doesn't seem to endorse that particular idiocy, but he does have a lot of remarkably stupid ideas, and he has no idea how stupid they are.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Feb 2 21:23:00 2022
    On 2/2/2022 9:18 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 2/2/2022 8:53 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
    <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf)
    that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little
    to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic
    and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence,
    lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a
    pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months,
    EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing
    lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly
    obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models
    to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Chine
    (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others
    with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown
    is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and
    assigned a QR code they can bring up on their phones. The police
    regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one
    indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT
    THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and
    quarantine. Don't even think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute
    economists is easily refuted as garbage.
    If you isolate forever, you're safe from infection. But eventually you
    have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.
    or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn't
    double/triple/quadruple
    vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn't and option because it means
    starving ...

    There were a lot of people in the US who wanted to stay home but
    couldn't just on the grounds that getting seriously ill in America often
    also means going bankrupt, too.

    Or to be more clear, they couldn't stay home cuz "work or starve" tends
    to be the option here, also

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Wed Feb 2 21:18:51 2022
    On 2/2/2022 8:53 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 02.46.31 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
    <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.
    If you isolate forever, you're safe from infection. But eventually you
    have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

    or the whole world, where a whole lot of poorer countries isn't double/triple/quadruple
    vaccinating everyone, and isolating isn't and option because it means starving ...

    There were a lot of people in the US who wanted to stay home but
    couldn't just on the grounds that getting seriously ill in America often
    also means going bankrupt, too.

    If you've got the temerity to get really sick here and your Aryan genes
    and workout routine didn't do a good enough job keeping you healthy on
    your own, the for-profit healthcare system has no problem at all bilking
    you for every dime you got, you deserve it.

    Dying sucks, surviving often sucks pretty hard too, there's a definite financial incentive to not get sick in the US, also

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Feb 2 18:44:06 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    If you isolate forever, you're safe from infection. But eventually you
    have to come out. Scale that concept to an entire country.

    But the point about effective lockdowns is that you eventually don't have anybody out in the community who is infected. Really effective lockdowns only have to last a couple of week, and after that you can go back to life as normal, until some idiot
    border control officer lets in a new infected person and they manage to infect a new bunch of carriers. Australia had a series of regional lockdowns. Some places saw very few infections at all.

    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.

    Not good advice. It's still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

    The Chinese communist party seems to have other reasons to deploy universal tracking.

    Perhaps, but it is very useful for enforcing lock-downs when you need them, and making sure that they are enforced well enough to be effective.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 18:58:19 2022
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 03.44.11 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.
    Not good advice. It's still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

    lots of things kill people in Australia, google says ~160000 people die in Australia each year

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 2 18:53:32 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:58:39 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.

    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

    Because they were introduced too late to have much effect, and not enforced vigorously enough to have much effect.

    What the paper effectively says is that the US and European governments that tried to lock down their population did a thoroughly incompetent job.

    As you'd expect from a study coming for the CATO Institute, they've ignored places that introduced lockdowns fast enough for them to be helpful and enforced them stringently enough for them to be effective. Right-wingers just love examples of policies
    they don't like being enacted too incompetently to deliver the benefits thye should have done.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Wed Feb 2 19:32:35 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:58:22 PM UTC+11, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 03.44.11 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.

    Not good advice. It's still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

    Lots of things kill people in Australia, google says ~160000 people die in Australia each year.

    Life expectancy in Australia is about 83 years. The Australian population is about 27 million, so we should have about 300,000 deaths per year, but the population has been expanding, Covid-19 deaths are relatively rare - 3,987 over the two years of the
    pandemic and most of them were going to die of something else over the next decade or so, but that doesn't make getting even the Omicron strain of Covid-19 a good idea.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 2 19:51:42 2022
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 04.32.39 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:58:22 PM UTC+11, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 03.44.11 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.

    Not good advice. It's still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

    Lots of things kill people in Australia, google says ~160000 people die in Australia each year.

    Life expectancy in Australia is about 83 years. The Australian population is about 27 million, so we should have about 300,000 deaths per year, but the population has been expanding, Covid-19 deaths are relatively rare - 3,987 over the two years of the
    pandemic and most of them were going to die of something else over the next decade or so, but that doesn't make getting even the Omicron strain of Covid-19 a good idea.


    so as long as jsut one person dies of covid and not the many other reasons, covid should have special status and shut down everything?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From corvid@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Wed Feb 2 20:42:42 2022
    On 2/2/22 16:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4-8608-4c4d03a8a014n@googlegroups.com:

    It's hard to tell if the conclusions they draw result from small
    benefit of policy, or if they result from policy applied wisely but
    compliance lacking,

    Exactly the most significant factor very likey IS lack of compliance
    and that is nearly 100% Trumper idiots.
    ^^^^^ ^^^^^

    They were licking aircraft toilet seats.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Wed Feb 2 22:31:26 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC+11, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 04.32.39 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:58:22 PM UTC+11, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 3. februar 2022 kl. 03.44.11 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    The latest variant of the virus isn't very deadly. May as well chance getting it and move on.

    Not good advice. It's still killing people in Australia - more older people, as you expect, but some of them were fully vaccinated and boosted.

    Lots of things kill people in Australia, google says ~160000 people die in Australia each year.

    Life expectancy in Australia is about 83 years. The Australian population is about 27 million, so we should have about 300,000 deaths per year, but the population has been expanding, Covid-19 deaths are relatively rare - 3,987 over the two years of
    the pandemic and most of them were going to die of something else over the next decade or so, but that doesn't make getting even the Omicron strain of Covid-19 a good idea.

    So as long as just one person dies of covid and not the many other reasons, covid should have special status and shut down everything?

    Covid-19 in general - and the Omicron strain in particular - is remarkably contagious. Shutting down a lot of stuff - relatively briefly was an effective route to having nobody infected with it within the Australian community.

    Mass vaccination should be a better route and it has worked with small pox and has almost worked with measles and polio. Sadly, we need to vaccinate even more people than we already have, and granting the Omicron strain's capacity to infect anybody handy
    (even when they have been double-vaccinated and boosted, like my sister-in-law) it may not be enough on it's own.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Feb 3 09:40:17 2022
    On 02/02/2022 23:58, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 3:20:59 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.
    The real comparison is the infection rate of people observing lockdown and people not observing lockdown. The answer is starkly obvious. And we don't need no stinking studies and computer models to open our eyes and observe places like Japan, Korea,
    Taiwan, Chine (even), Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and a bunch of others with strict lockdowns and lockdown enforcement, to see that lockdown is very effective. In China people people are tested weekly and assigned a QR code they can bring up on
    their phones. The police regularly stop people for a QR check and if you're found to have one indicating a positive test, THEY WILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Positive people are required to self-isolate and quarantine. Don't even
    think about arguing with them.
    Your little phony research paper written by bunch of CATO Institute economists is easily refuted as garbage.

    Sorry, but lockdowns in the US and Europe only reduction COVID mortality by 0.2%, a negligible amount.

    That is selective righttard reporting in a way intended to deceive!

    Their point if there was one is that most gain came from knocking down
    the main vectors of transmission rather than the lockdown itself.

    Namely closing down the main spreading venues:

    Entertainment venues
    Schools and universities

    And taking counter measures against spreading it:

    Social distancing
    Wearing Masks
    Staying outdoors

    UK is a special case in that deaths were made worse by insane actions

    Disbanding the pandemic preparedness committee 6 months prior
    (and running down pandemic supplies to the bare bone)
    Throwing infected elderly patients into care homes untested.

    It is ironic that the people setting the rules in the UK were partying
    like there was no tomorrow inside the Prime Minister's own home No 10!
    He is very much in the "Do as I say, not as I do" school of management.

    Whilst they were all partying the rules said you could only meet one
    person outside your home and take 1 hour a day of exercise outdoors.

    He should be fired for misleading the House of Commons but the lying toe
    rags are all rallying round him. Amusingly one of their hugely crowded
    meetings to determine his fate has spread Covid into their MPs!
    (they deserve that since freedom loving non mask wearing was rampant)

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Thu Feb 3 22:15:21 2022
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in news:stg7u2$1ll4$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    snip

    He should be fired for misleading the House of Commons but the
    lying toe rags are all rallying round him. Amusingly one of their
    hugely crowded meetings to determine his fate has spread Covid
    into their MPs! (they deserve that since freedom loving non mask
    wearing was rampant)


    They want to claim freedoms, but were I infected by a 'free' idiot,
    I would want to be free to put a slug of lead into his face at a
    couple thousand feet per second.

    They seem to have no grasp whatsoever of civic duty, and much less
    'during a crisis'. And this IS a civic duty scenario. It serves to
    prove just how badly uneducated the last two generations are, or they
    would all be with the science and not the cult. And with some cases
    it goes two generations further back. It is parents at fault for
    casually enjoying the great nation as they spurted out kids, and
    proceded to fail them educationally.

    It actually should be our civic duty to lock the 'freedom' retards
    up and educate them on WHY certain societal things change under
    certain circumstances. They see it as an attack on the entire
    system, and are so pussified that they think it is an inroad to
    police state rule or some other stupid shit. When all it is and ever
    was is an ABATEMENT procedure, PROVEN to work IF implemented fully.
    Whereas in our case some of us did, and most Trump idiots only
    implemeneted it FOOLy.

    If we were like them, we would already be executing folks to show
    the rest that they need to comply. It is not a freedom restriction,
    it is a TRANSMISSION VECTOR RESTRICTION. JUST like when your kid
    MUST be vaxed to attend a public school. Jeez all these idiots need
    to do is look at that model. Kids spread respiratory diseases to
    each other inside school's closed doors. We ALL ALREADY KNOW THIS
    and that is WHY we FORCE vaccinations and parents comply. This is no
    different except that now Sports Bar dipshit Daddy and his contrary
    dipshit drunk friends decided to go against the grain like the little
    pussified absolute retards they are.

    And the really stupid thing on their part (the Trump cult)is they
    are doing this as a party thing. The very party claiming to be
    conservatives of some old unattainable fantasy world where there is
    no Gov regulation on aything so they can willy nilly pollute and
    willy nilly kill someone and do whatever they want.

    I know one new regulatory statute that needs to go into place.

    Comply or lose your freedom. PERIOD. KNOW and follow your civic
    duty or those of us whom do should remove you from free soil and ANY
    proximity to ANY of us. Were we like the Chinese, they would get the
    shit beat out of them right there in the street, and then taken to
    jail. They say DO THIS, and you can bet the folks list I know some
    stupid "Karens" that need that to happen to them. You want to go
    breathing on everyone... I want to limit the group to just you
    stupid fucks breathing ONLY on each other.

    See how fast they grasp the reality of the science then.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Feb 3 18:56:32 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 1:24:11 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4...@googlegroups.com:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, FlyTurd wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
    e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
    COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:

    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and
    help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising
    infection rate is not appropriate.
    Yep. FlyTurd is an absolute utter retard.

    Hey Decadent Linux User Numero Uno , you just proved that you can't READ ! ! !

    To Flyguy's complete satisfaction. Sadly Flyguy, hasn't published his proof and we know that the the kind of "proof" that satisfies Flyguy looks very like wishful thinking to more objective observers. Flyguy posts links to stuff that don't mean anything
    like what he claims they mean - a recent link to a document which he presented as if it were about tornado frequency turned out to be about a light aircraft crash - and he can't seem to recognise that he's got it wrong.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Thu Feb 3 18:24:07 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:207f3729-ea4b-44c4...@googlegroups.com:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 10:20:50 AM UTC-8, FlyTurd wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study
    (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/ia
    e/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effect s-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the
    COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact, more harmful than
    helpful:

    Not true; there was no measure of harm, so comparison of harm and
    help was not done. Help was measured,
    at about 3%, after assuming that extrapolation of a rising
    infection rate is not appropriate.
    Yep. FlyTurd is an absolute utter retard.

    Hey DecayedBrainMatter, you just proved that you can't READ ! ! !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Feb 3 19:38:21 2022
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in
    fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.
    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.
    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Feb 3 19:56:11 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in
    fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri Feb 4 14:50:05 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in
    fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !
    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri Feb 4 16:58:42 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote: >> JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and,
    in fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should
    be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !

    The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Fri Feb 4 23:54:25 2022
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in news:stg7u2$1ll4$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

    snip
    He should be fired for misleading the House of Commons but the
    lying toe rags are all rallying round him. Amusingly one of their
    hugely crowded meetings to determine his fate has spread Covid
    into their MPs! (they deserve that since freedom loving non mask
    wearing was rampant)

    They want to claim freedoms, but were I infected by a 'free' idiot,
    I would want to be free to put a slug of lead into his face at a
    couple thousand feet per second.

    They seem to have no grasp whatsoever of civic duty, and much less
    'during a crisis'. And this IS a civic duty scenario. It serves to
    prove just how badly uneducated the last two generations are, or they
    would all be with the science and not the cult. And with some cases
    it goes two generations further back. It is parents at fault for
    casually enjoying the great nation as they spurted out kids, and
    proceded to fail them educationally.

    It actually should be our civic duty to lock the 'freedom' retards
    up and educate them on WHY certain societal things change under
    certain circumstances. They see it as an attack on the entire
    system, and are so pussified that they think it is an inroad to
    police state rule or some other stupid shit. When all it is and ever
    was is an ABATEMENT procedure, PROVEN to work IF implemented fully.
    Whereas in our case some of us did, and most Trump idiots only
    implemeneted it FOOLy.

    If we were like them, we would already be executing folks to show
    the rest that they need to comply. It is not a freedom restriction,
    it is a TRANSMISSION VECTOR RESTRICTION. JUST like when your kid
    MUST be vaxed to attend a public school. Jeez all these idiots need
    to do is look at that model. Kids spread respiratory diseases to
    each other inside school's closed doors. We ALL ALREADY KNOW THIS
    and that is WHY we FORCE vaccinations and parents comply. This is no different except that now Sports Bar dipshit Daddy and his contrary
    dipshit drunk friends decided to go against the grain like the little pussified absolute retards they are.

    And the really stupid thing on their part (the Trump cult)is they
    are doing this as a party thing. The very party claiming to be
    conservatives of some old unattainable fantasy world where there is
    no Gov regulation on aything so they can willy nilly pollute and
    willy nilly kill someone and do whatever they want.

    I know one new regulatory statute that needs to go into place.

    Comply or lose your freedom. PERIOD. KNOW and follow your civic
    duty or those of us whom do should remove you from free soil and ANY proximity to ANY of us. Were we like the Chinese, they would get the
    shit beat out of them right there in the street, and then taken to
    jail. They say DO THIS, and you can bet the folks list I know some
    stupid "Karens" that need that to happen to them. You want to go
    breathing on everyone... I want to limit the group to just you
    stupid fucks breathing ONLY on each other.

    See how fast they grasp the reality of the science then.

    I see that the Gestapo didn't die with Nazi Germany...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri Feb 4 23:41:07 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 4:58:49 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote: >> JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and,
    in fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should
    be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
    The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    SNIPPERMAN, as usual, has lost his mind. The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to "discourage an invading enemy," they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the
    global environmental damage. SNIPPERMAN wants to make HIS OWN COUNTRY uninhabitable, which would also have the same effect on his OWN COUNTRYMEN ! ! ! The guy is an insane lunatic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Feb 5 00:15:19 2022
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to "discourage an invading enemy," they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

    Well, 'their own land' was less obnoxious than bombing on their conquered territories. The enemy DID invade,
    though not the US mainland. Ask in China, Philippines, Korea or old Burma. Hawaii had some complaint with them, too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Feb 5 02:52:42 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:54:36 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in news:stg7u2$1ll4$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

    I know one new regulatory statute that needs to go into place.

    Comply or lose your freedom. PERIOD. KNOW and follow your civic
    duty or those of us whom do should remove you from free soil and ANY proximity to ANY of us. Were we like the Chinese, they would get the
    shit beat out of them right there in the street, and then taken to
    jail. They say DO THIS, and you can bet the folks list I know some
    stupid "Karens" that need that to happen to them. You want to go
    breathing on everyone... I want to limit the group to just you
    stupid fucks breathing ONLY on each other.

    See how fast they grasp the reality of the science then.

    I see that the Gestapo didn't die with Nazi Germany...

    The habit of beating people up who weren't doing what the local authorities thought that they ought to wasn't unique to Nazi Germany - Flyguy's relatives in the Klu Klux Klan did it to coloured Americans on an industrial scale.

    It's not a sensible way of getting people to get vaccinated or wear their masks, even though it delivers a clear and visible message that would get the attention of even somebody as stupid as Flyguy. He probably wouldn't understand why it would be a good
    idea to get vaccinated or wear a face mask, but he might do it if the alternative was having the shit beaten out of him - and he is full of shit.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Feb 5 02:41:19 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 4:58:49 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective
    and, in fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and
    should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the U government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !

    The tests were stopped sixty years ago. As a way of discouraging an invading enemy - which is the context I was talking about - the cost benefit ratio is rather different, as anybody except a moron like you would appreciate.

    Sloman, as usual, has lost his mind. The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to "discourage an invading enemy," they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy to hell on their OWN LAND.

    Flyguy hasn't noticed that Project Ploghshare was about digging holes, not about blowing up enemies. What I was suggesting was that Australia might let off a hydrogen bomb under an iron mine, so that the iron ore fell into the radioactive hole, from
    which it wouldn't have a good idea to dig it out again.

    This is all much too complicated for Flyguy to process, so he's "translated" into something dimwitted enough for him to witter on about.

    And they stopped doing this SIXTY YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

    The thing about Project Ploughshare was that the nuclear detonations weren't supposed to generate a lot of fall-out. Most of it - ideally all of it - was supposed to stay safely buried. What killed it wasn't any kind of global environmental damage, but
    rather the usual "not in my back yard" response of the local populations who might have benefited from some large, cheap holes.

    Sloman wants to make HIS OWN COUNTRY uninhabitable, which would also have the same effect on his OWN COUNTRYMEN ! ! ! The guy is an insane lunatic.

    The lunacy is all Flyguy's. British nuclear tests have already made a few small areas of Australia places that you need to travel through rather quickly. Wrecking an iron mine so that a bunch of invading Chinese couldn't exploit it isn't exactly making
    the rest of the country uninhabitable.

    Flyguy doesn't seem to have noticed that Australia about the same size as the continental United States (with a tenth of the population density) so we aren't going to be inconvenienced by losing the occasional small bit, any more that the US was worried
    about losing the bits that it used for nuclear tests.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Feb 5 17:32:07 2022
    Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8f0faea5-2421-43b6-b12d-d43b2e41f695n@googlegroups.com:

    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:15:32 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in
    news:stg7u2$1ll4$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

    snip
    He should be fired for misleading the House of Commons but the
    lying toe rags are all rallying round him. Amusingly one of
    their hugely crowded meetings to determine his fate has spread
    Covid into their MPs! (they deserve that since freedom loving
    non mask wearing was rampant)

    They want to claim freedoms, but were I infected by a 'free'
    idiot, I would want to be free to put a slug of lead into his
    face at a couple thousand feet per second.

    They seem to have no grasp whatsoever of civic duty, and much
    less 'during a crisis'. And this IS a civic duty scenario. It
    serves to prove just how badly uneducated the last two
    generations are, or they would all be with the science and not
    the cult. And with some cases it goes two generations further
    back. It is parents at fault for casually enjoying the great
    nation as they spurted out kids, and proceded to fail them
    educationally.

    It actually should be our civic duty to lock the 'freedom'
    retards up and educate them on WHY certain societal things change
    under certain circumstances. They see it as an attack on the
    entire system, and are so pussified that they think it is an
    inroad to police state rule or some other stupid shit. When all
    it is and ever was is an ABATEMENT procedure, PROVEN to work IF
    implemented fully. Whereas in our case some of us did, and most
    Trump idiots only implemeneted it FOOLy.

    If we were like them, we would already be executing folks to show
    the rest that they need to comply. It is not a freedom
    restriction, it is a TRANSMISSION VECTOR RESTRICTION. JUST like
    when your kid MUST be vaxed to attend a public school. Jeez all
    these idiots need to do is look at that model. Kids spread
    respiratory diseases to each other inside school's closed doors.
    We ALL ALREADY KNOW THIS and that is WHY we FORCE vaccinations
    and parents comply. This is no different except that now Sports
    Bar dipshit Daddy and his contrary dipshit drunk friends decided
    to go against the grain like the little pussified absolute
    retards they are.

    And the really stupid thing on their part (the Trump cult)is they
    are doing this as a party thing. The very party claiming to be
    conservatives of some old unattainable fantasy world where there
    is no Gov regulation on aything so they can willy nilly pollute
    and willy nilly kill someone and do whatever they want.

    I know one new regulatory statute that needs to go into place.

    Comply or lose your freedom. PERIOD. KNOW and follow your civic
    duty or those of us whom do should remove you from free soil and
    ANY proximity to ANY of us. Were we like the Chinese, they would
    get the shit beat out of them right there in the street, and then
    taken to jail. They say DO THIS, and you can bet the folks list I
    know some stupid "Karens" that need that to happen to them. You
    want to go breathing on everyone... I want to limit the group to
    just you stupid fucks breathing ONLY on each other.

    See how fast they grasp the reality of the science then.

    I see that the Gestapo didn't die with Nazi Germany...

    Nice try, dumbfuck.

    It comes down to civic duty. Period. I do not expect 30 IQ
    jackasses like you to ever get it. Gotta have your freedom, even if
    it infringes on others. Gotta NOT comply to affect that
    infringement. You freely breathing, zero vaccination retards need to
    learn one thing...

    You ARE NOT FREE to BREATHE YOUR INFECTIOUS CLOUDS in PUBLIC. My
    choice, being free, is to LOCK YOUR RETARDED ASSES UP for that
    stupid, criminal "choice". THAT is how it should be.
    Because you dumbfucks are 'freely' EXTENDING the amout of time and
    resources we have to put into this thing because you dumbfucks are
    why it is dragging out and why the death count is so high to start
    with.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sat Feb 5 18:06:01 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:602319a9-88de-4904-8764-1a67b31c7265n@googlegroups.com:

    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    The US, of course, did not detonate nukes to "discourage an
    invading enemy," they did it to develop weapons to blow an enemy
    to hell on their OWN LAND. And they stopped doing this SIXTY
    YEARS AGO because of the global environmental damage.

    Well, 'their own land' was less obnoxious than bombing on their
    conquered territories. The enemy DID invade, though not the US
    mainland. Ask in China, Philippines, Korea or old Burma. Hawaii
    had some complaint with them, too.


    +1

    Not to mention their penchant for torture.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sat Feb 5 18:07:44 2022
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:e7e0fffa- a70c-4f99-af08-2419672988d3n@googlegroups.com:

    "not in my back yard"

    Heheheh.. More like "Not under my back yard", eh?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to soar2morrow@yahoo.com on Wed Feb 9 07:46:28 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
    as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.


    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 9 16:00:16 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:7eo70hh4iue0bfmal1dnvh6qlun9q0m5ku@4ax.com:

    were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    Only because Trump misled his already misled party with his downplay
    and lies.

    Otherwise it would have had a far better efficacy.

    Cannot have efficacy if half the group is too goddamned retarded to
    take part. That is the ONLY reason they had *less* effect. So many of
    you jackjawed total retard "karens and kens" out there not wearing one
    to get any reliable data. Not something an idiot like Larkin could
    possibly grasp.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 9 10:01:55 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:46:45 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study...

    which makes silly assumptions and ends with an opinion that exceeds the meta-study scope.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    ... is a book review, and frankly, either reading the book, or even the review, takes as much time as a few dozen repetitions of masking up.
    Even if all it does is remind us that there's a disease rampant, and to
    keep distancing, those silly masks are a good idea. Wearing swimsuits for swimming, it's less clear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed Feb 9 17:30:58 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:22:49 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote: >> JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and,
    in fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should
    be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the US. government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !
    You'd think that even a moron like Flyguy would notice that the US still has nuclear weapons, and is still spending money on making sure that they would work, albeit using the more sophisticate methods that have been developed in the past sixty years.

    There are still potentially useful. I was pointing out a particular use in a situation of all-out war, not suggesting one more test blast.

    Flyguy is much too dumb to realise that there is a difference, and that the fact he hasn't noticed it emphasises just how dumb he is.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are flailing away in your inept attempt to somehow justify what is most likely the DUMBEST comment I have EVER read online, namely nuking YOUR OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! Why don't you just wear a suicide bomb vest so you can blow yourself up
    to avoid capture?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Feb 9 17:22:41 2022
    On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:50:13 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 7:56:14 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:38:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:46:31 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20:55 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote: >> JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and,
    in fact, more harmful than helpful:
    It actually proved that ineffective lock downs in the US and Europe didn't do much that was useful.

    More effective lock downs in places that put them in place early enough to have a useful effect, and policed them properly so that infection numbers consequently declined rapidly, were much more effective and decidedly useful.

    John Hopkins may not have had access to that data.

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should
    be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci.

    Flyguy is a fairly typical example of people who have been saying that. There are a lot idiots around, though few quite as stupid as Flyguy.

    LOL ! ! ! This coming from the moron that wants to NUKE HIS OWN COUNTRY ! ! ! !

    Says the moron who hasn't noticed that the US. government carried out lots of nuclear tests in his own country, including a bunch of Project Ploughshare explosions, which are more or less what I was talking about.

    Says the moron who HIMSELF is advocating something that was stopped SIXTY YEARS AGO ! ! !

    You'd think that even a moron like Flyguy would notice that the US still has nuclear weapons, and is still spending money on making sure that they would work, albeit using the more sophisticate methods that have been developed in the past sixty years.

    There are still potentially useful. I was pointing out a particular use in a situation of all-out war, not suggesting one more test blast.

    Flyguy is much too dumb to realise that there is a difference, and that the fact he hasn't noticed it emphasises just how dumb he is.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 9 17:34:14 2022
    On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
    as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Fauci.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren't all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

    "Studies" of areas where lots of people didn't aren't all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don't like being implemented in a desultory
    fashion and showing that it didn't do much.

    Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Feb 10 14:56:04 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Fauci.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren't all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

    "Studies" of areas where lots of people didn't aren't all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don't like being implemented in a desultory
    fashion and showing that it didn't do much.

    Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn't) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates. Used to be that libtards like SNIPPERMAN said that they "follow the science;" once the science turns against
    them they say "Oh, forget the science - we know best."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Feb 10 15:44:57 2022
    On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

    SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn't) which concluded ...

    Flyguy didn't read the article. The Johns Hopkins institution specifically disavows the
    opinion content, though the authors have some affiliation with that school. The
    fact that Johns Hopkins also has a useful site for tracking COVID events is
    a handy bit of camouflage, as the factual content of the article in question, for
    the 'conclusion' which does not have any support in the data

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to soar2morrow@yahoo.com on Thu Feb 10 17:15:05 2022
    On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:56:04 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Fauci.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren't all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

    "Studies" of areas where lots of people didn't aren't all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don't like being implemented in a
    desultory fashion and showing that it didn't do much.

    Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn't) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates. Used to be that libtards like SNIPPERMAN said that they "follow the science;" once the science turns against
    them they say "Oh, forget the science - we know best."

    The Science keeps changing.

    What's amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done on
    simple things like masking. It wouldn't be difficult.

    A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad
    experiments.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Feb 10 18:05:09 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:56:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in
    fact, more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Fauci.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren't all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

    "Studies" of areas where lots of people didn't aren't all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don't like being implemented in a
    desultory fashion and showing that it didn't do much.

    Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

    Sloman thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn't) which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on COVID death rates.

    It was the John Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and the Study of Business Enterprise, and one of the authors (and a co-founder of the Institute), is one Steve H. Hanke - is also a senior fellow at the CATO Institute. This is a
    right-wing institute that has been tacked onto John Hopkins with the intention of exploiting the John Hopkin's reputation to add credibility to the usual right-wing propaganda

    Used to be that libtards like Sloman said that they "follow the science;" once the science turns against them they say "Oh, forget the science - we know best."

    We still follow the science, but we do know enough to notice when right-wing clowns publish incomplete studies of selected data that appear to support false propositions. I've made the point often enough that our resident population of gullible suckers (
    who don't seem to notice when this happens) should have noticed.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 10 18:17:09 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:15:21 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:56:04 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:46:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:20:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
    <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in
    fact, more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be
    rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Joe Biden and Fauci.

    https://unherd.com/2022/02/were-masks-a-waste-of-time/

    This is a reporter playing to the dumber part of his audience. Mask aren't all that effective, but they do help. They help a lot more if everybody wears them.

    "Studies" of areas where lots of people didn't aren't all that informative, but are very handy for the kind of right-wingers who goes in for the standard right-wing tactic of finding an example of policy they don't like being implemented in a
    desultory fashion and showing that it didn't do much.

    Flyguy and John Larkin are suckers for that kind of propaganda, as they keep on reminding us.

    <snipped Flyguy missing the point with his usual enthusiasm>

    The science keeps changing.

    It doesn't. John Larkin keeps on getting suckered by pseudoscientific propaganda that makes that kind of assertion at regular intervals.

    What's amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done on simple things like masking. It wouldn't be difficult.

    It's one of those areas where medical clowns do lots of bad experiments, and get them published in the medical literature, which isn't famous for the quality of its refereeing. John Larkin doesn't know about any of them

    A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad experiments.

    In this case the study averaged a carefully selected bunch of bad experiments - mask-wearing and lock-downs in regions where there was no enthusiasm for enforcing the desired behavior - and the conclusion is that if you don't get most people to conform
    to the desired restriction, saying that they ought to doesn't have much effect. This isn't the way the study is being sold - it's right-wing propaganda and lying about what the results mean is the whole point of the exercise.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 06:23:14 2022
    John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news:utdb0h555riedq0bfd5b29b9k5h4otrlc3@4ax.com:

    The Science keeps changing.

    You are an idiot. Science "fine tunes", and only in those cases
    where it was wholly wrong, does it "jump" to the new "reality".


    What's amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done
    on
    simple things like masking. It wouldn't be difficult.

    Another retarded crack by the idiot. Surgeons have been wearing
    spittle masks for a hundred years and the reason is clear and the
    efficacy 100% proven, you STUPID, TrumpTarded motherfucker.

    A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad
    experiments.

    Ask ANY surgery patient if they would have felt safe with the
    surgeon standing over them barking out orders for instruments without
    a mask.

    John Larkin is a clueless worm.

    Masks work. Period. So does the term civic duty, but retarded
    Trump Cult followers would not know what civic duty was if it bit
    them in the lungs. Goddamned shame it doesn't take every last one of
    you uncivil jackass motherfuckers OUT.

    CCAD Larken... fuckheaded TrumpTard.






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to FlyTurd on Fri Feb 11 06:17:00 2022
    FlyTurd <soreonhisface2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in news:0ac5a3a2-312e-483a-8df3-e4bd02c0bf76n@googlegroups.com:

    SNIPPERMAN thinks he is smarter than Johns Hopkins (he isn't)
    which concluded that mask wearing had a negligible effect on
    COVID death rates.

    ONLY because ALL of the retarded party centric TrumpTards did not participate. You obviously have no clue about the stats' truth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Fri Feb 11 22:35:48 2022
    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:su4vci$1vr3$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news:utdb0h555riedq0bfd5b29b9k5h4otrlc3@4ax.com:

    The Science keeps changing.

    You are an idiot. Science "fine tunes", and only in those cases
    where it was wholly wrong, does it "jump" to the new "reality".


    What's amazing is how few decent-scale experiments have been done
    on
    simple things like masking. It wouldn't be difficult.

    Another retarded crack by the idiot. Surgeons have been wearing
    spittle masks for a hundred years and the reason is clear and the
    efficacy 100% proven, you STUPID, TrumpTarded motherfucker.

    A meta-analysis is often just an averaging of a lot of bad
    experiments.

    Ask ANY surgery patient if they would have felt safe with the
    surgeon standing over them barking out orders for instruments
    without a mask.

    John Larkin is a clueless worm.

    Masks work. Period. So does the term civic duty, but retarded
    Trump Cult followers would not know what civic duty was if it bit
    them in the lungs. Goddamned shame it doesn't take every last one
    of you uncivil jackass motherfuckers OUT.

    CCAD Larken... fuckheaded TrumpTard.


    Answer the post, Johnny... Johnny dumbfuck.

    You asked and you request was fulfilled. Now admit you are a know
    nothing fucktard as it relates to masks, Goddamned TrumpTainted
    retard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From corvid@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Feb 13 12:26:29 2022
    On 2/2/22 10:20, Flyguy wrote:
    JohnsHopkins just released a meta-study (https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf) that proves that the COVID lockdowns were ineffective and, in fact,
    more harmful than helpful:

    "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected
    as a pandemic policy instrument."

    Of course, MANY people have been saying the same thing for months, EXCEPT for Lyin' Biden and Fucking Fauci.

    This article says you're a chump:

    <https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claims-johns-hopkins-study-showed-lockdowns-ineffective-reducing-covid-19-mortality-based-working-paper-questionable-methods-fox-news-daily-mail/>

    How do you feel about that?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)