1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dolphins get over the 85% goal

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Finatik, Jul 9, 2021.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But we're taking about Fauci's emails. I don't need a "fact checker," I can go simply read the actual emails.
     
    aesop likes this.
  2. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Of course, and there's physicians on every possible side saying things that don't align. Part of that is politics, while part is just a true difference in beliefs. And that's 100% fine; as long as these specialists are saying that it's their opinion and not a proven fast. The real problem is what comes next with the media as they spin this stuff to fit whatever they're preaching on any given day...that's what gets me.
     
    Den54 likes this.
  3. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    You say it was new like that is some small thing. I certainly would like experts to be able to change their assessments as they get more information and facts.

    Nobody was ever going to have it 100% right on day 1 and nobody did. People are just using that as their justification to be anti vax, anti mask, or whatever.
     
    Hooligan and Silverphin like this.
  4. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Exactly.

    People are bringing up e-mails while ignoring the fact that said e-mails about masks not working were from the beginning of the pandemic. Of course stances will change when new information comes out - that's what doctors and scientists do.
     
    Puka-head and Fireland like this.
  5. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    And it wasn't even about it not working as he said people that had the virus should wear one. The key part that gets ignored in the "lying emails" was that it wasn't fully known that you could spread while not having symptoms.
     
    Puka-head and Silverphin like this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    There is no "new" evidence that masks work. A study just came out in the last week or two, that showed that masks and social distancing did nothing to slow the spread.

    We have decades of research that show that masks are ineffective. There were studies done decades ago that showed that infection rates in surgeries were actually lower with no one wearing masks than with both patient and surgeons wearing masks.

    But what I currently see are articles that make claims, but don't back up claims with facts.
     
    aesop likes this.
  7. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Do you have a link to this study?
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Also, I'd love for someone to explain how you can have no symptoms, but did the virus.

    That is a total lie, that was based on PCR tests being run at 37-40 cycles, which was causing people to test positive who couldn't possibly have enough of a viral load to be sick, much less infect anyone.

    My problem is, that there was all this research and data available. Yet, we were simply told it was "misinformation."
     
    aesop likes this.
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I saw it on pubmed initially. They have met with resistance due to it not being "peer reviewed," but my personal belief is that peer review is a joke, creating an echo chamber where dissenting opinions don't pass muster.

    But there are many studies going back decades and decades that show the same thing.
     
  10. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    Study that show what I like=good
    Studies that shows what I don't like=bad

    People just get in social media bubbles and its difficult to break that
     
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. But throwing out decades of research, or just outright ignoring it, is not beneficial to anyone.

    Two or three weeks ago, the WHO website stated that they did not recommend vaccinating children with the covid vaccines.

    Within about 3 hours, they had pulled that from the website. What science changed in 3 hours?
     
    KeyFin and aesop like this.
  12. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    Because they updated their old guidance after people were misrepresenting it to spread fear for political gains? Or left out important context like you are doing now?

    https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/s...-whos-covid-19-vaccine-guidance-for-children/
     
  13. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,676
    31,338
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    All this ever changing Covid info is the worse thing since the Civil War.
     
    Puka-head likes this.
  14. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    4,323
    4,012
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    Everything is now worse than the civil war. Too funny.
     
  15. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    4,323
    4,012
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    But Fauci did say that he told people they didn't need to wear masks at the begging so that people wouldn't go out and take up all the masks that the hospital workers needed. While his intentions may have been good, he lied and that affects his credibility. I don't want to be lied to by my public health officials. Period. I THINK he's also lying about this gain of function funding because his fingerprints are all over it. Him and a bunch of others that knew about it and are covering their Arses. He's lost all credibility.
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I mean, look what happened to toilet paper...did we want that with masks that medical pros and the elderly needed?

    In hindsight, it's easy to say, "they lied about this and that" or "they should have done this and that <differently, sooner, better, etc.>" I think what many people forget is that we've never faced something like this before, Americans are stubborn as can be about our freedoms, and a large part of the nation is going to follow their political party's advice. Could you imagine having Fauci's job with the White House trying to downplay the virus, other departments completely contradicting the White House and medical leaders basically guessing? There was simply no possible way for him to get every answer right with all the pressure he had from every angle.

    For me, I think the guy deserves a medal for guiding the nation the best he could and not completely losing his cool. He was literally given an impossible job.
     
    Hooligan, Puka-head and Fireland like this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What context? I read on the WHO website that they did not recommend vaccinating children. Three hours later I went and looked, and it was gone.

    There's no misrepresenting.

    You are free to believe "fact checkers.". I choose to believe data that we have had for decades.
     
    aesop likes this.
  18. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    Does that sound something set in stone forever or does that sound like they are waiting for more evidence to make the call? Because that was there for months until they got evidence and made the change.

    If you don't like that then don't pretend to care about data or science because that isn't what its about
     
    Silverphin likes this.
  19. OwesOwn614

    OwesOwn614 Well-Known Member

    3,757
    3,786
    113
    Jul 8, 2020
    We're doomed. SMH.
     
    KeyFin, Fireland and Silverphin like this.
  20. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    5,185
    2,907
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    And I have watched other drs and scientists information get deleted because it doesn't fit the narrative!
    Candance Owens is sueing the fact checkers!
    U control the information u control the people.
    U don't think that's possible than I feel sorry for you.
     
  21. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    That is what it is all about. He was at odds with President Trump. This isn't about facts its about politics. Science doesn't matter. Deaths don't matter. My team winning matters.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Covid was used to change election rules. Now, I'm not really going to elaborate, and I'm not going to get into anything else...but it is a fact, they used covid to change many rules.

    That cannot be discounted as a reason for how covid was handled.

    This is about facts. This is about truth. For me, this is not about politics, not about Dem vs Rep.
     
    Den54 likes this.
  23. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    Yes we were in a pandemic so it was made easier to vote. So what?

    You bringing that up just proves my point.
     
    Silverphin likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What the hell are you talking about?? First of all, China, despite making the problem worse at the outset of the outbreak by being totally non-transparent about it, nearly completely shut down transmission of the virus precisely through draconian levels of social distancing. That's a country of 1.4 billion people that solved this problem with social distancing and mask wearing with severe penalties for non-compliance. Same thing with countries like Taiwan and Australia, etc.

    There is NO question that you can kill transmission of a virus if you don't allow it to transmit! The issue with mask wearing and social distancing working or not working in countries like the US or those in Europe has more to do with the consequences of high levels of non-compliance. It has nothing to do with whether those strategies work in principle.

    Dude.. with most viral infections you have a fairly large percentage of individuals who are infected but asymptomatic. Generally, this occurs for two reasons: 1) it's in the early stages of infection so no outward signs of infection are seen, and 2) the person's immune system is strong enough so that you see no signs of infection, but the immune system isn't done shedding the virus.

    Asymptomatic individuals comprise I think around 15-20% of the seasonal flu for example. This is totally the norm. There's no "misinformation" per se with individuals showing few or no signs of viral infection yet having the ability to transmit the virus.

    Yeah well your "personal belief" is wrong, at least for peer review in the natural sciences. As a reviewer you're mostly focused on methodological issues, not whether you like or dislike the conclusions. So if the person hasn't demonstrated what they claim at a level that's satisfactory based on accepted statistical analysis, or their conclusions don't really follow from the data, or they haven't taken into account different types of biases like sampling bias when making their claims, then the reviewer will (or should) take them to task on that. Reviewers almost never criticize a work because they don't like the outcome.

    Of course there are different quality reviewers, some really good, others so-so and others totally incompetent, but that's another story. The peer review process itself is mostly about attacking methodology and significance/innovation. That's the other thing: you might see nothing wrong with the study from a methodological perspective, but if it adds nothing new then you can attack it for that.

    Now.. the editor is another matter. The editor generally does not provide a review per se, but decides whether the journal should or should not publish. That's where you can see a bias towards not publishing certain types of research. For example, a lot of clinical journals won't accept methods papers (literally: too "mathematical" for the journal can be a reason to reject publication — I've had that), while other journals may want to stay away from controversial papers. Yet others try to maximize impact factor (average number of times the paper will be cited) and reject a manuscript because they don't think it will have much impact. And in some cases the editor(s) might prefer certain topics etc.

    But in general, there's a journal that will publish. The problem isn't getting published after peer review per se. The problem is that too many papers of low quality get published because there are too many low quality journals. So if the study can't even get past peer review it's likely pretty bad. Also.. it's important to look at where the paper was published. Just being published doesn't really mean much. There's a reason certain journals are much more highly sought after: they tend to publish higher quality papers.

    lol.. anyway, just a rant here. I come back to this site to see what's up and it's about COVID lol.
     
  25. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Welcome back! We've been arguing about Xavien Howard for the past month as well...so we're actually a two-topic site at the moment! =)
     
    Puka-head, resnor and cbrad like this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I completely disagree with the pandemic.

    But even if you buy that narrative, they changed rules through people and entities other than state legislatures, and that is unconstitutional. There was no need for expanding or changing anything. People had 8 or 9 months to request absentee ballots if they were too scared to go vote in person.

    I'm not gonna address everything you posted cbrad, as I think that would pull this thread over the political cliff, and I don't want to do that. But I will say this, even IF masks prevented transmission, which they don't, supported by like 100 years of study and data, all they would do would be to keep the susceptible pool gigantic, and the immune pool small.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
    KeyFin likes this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I was hoping cbrad was ok...I hadn't seen anything from you in forever. Lol
     
    cbrad and KeyFin like this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Just busy that's all. Mostly because I want to be busy. Previously I was working on improving mathematical methods for analyzing medical research data, but now that's spilled over into machine learning, a consulting job for developing head mounted display vision tests for telehealth, and developing eyetracking based visual fields for disabled individuals that have trouble with more commonly used devices.

    I like it so it is what it is. Probably won't post much until the season starts, but I'll pop in to see what you guys are talking about!
     
    resnor and KeyFin like this.
  29. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,676
    31,338
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!

    I have no idea about most of what you just said but somehow feel the world is now safer.
     
    Puka-head, Hooligan and cbrad like this.
  30. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    The telehealth vision tests sound pretty interesting- would that be a "loaner" unit the patient has to send back? That doesn't feel very efficient. It feels like it would have to be app-based somehow with the smartphone's camera, or a cheap accessory that runs off the smartphone.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The idea is to be able to do common vision tests at home so you don't have to come to the clinic to do it. Furthermore, a head mounted display (HMD) offers the opportunity to improve on common vision tests used in the clinic. Clinicians tend to do things with far less rigor than vision scientists do. For example, a contrast sensitivity test done by vision scientists properly calibrates the monitor, makes sure the subject is dark adapted (pupil size depends on background luminance and can affect the result), and that luminance levels for different contrast values are at the proper candelas per meter squared, etc.

    With a HMD you can control these conditions in ways they can't do in the clinic. Also, if the device is used in the clinic you can save time by doing the test in the waiting room. Right now the idea is to make it app based with the smartphone put in the HMD (e.g., a Samsung smartphone in the Gear). What the business model is — patient being given/lent a device or outright buying it — is another story. I'm just helping with the development of the technology.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  32. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Okay, very very cool...I figured that would have to be the path (in order to potentially be profitable anyway). Testing in the waiting room is a completely different application though and there's value there as well for busy practices, so maybe they ultimately make an app and a hardware/software combination for offices.

    I write a lot of marketing material for Zebra and other big tech manufacturers, so that's right in my wheelhouse for something to nerd out on!
     
    cbrad likes this.
  33. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    We know

    Absolute nonsense and the courts and the law would back that it is nonsense but even if that was the case you wouldn't care if the you liked the results. We both know that is what this is about. Its also irrelevant to what we are talking about so why bring it up other than to show that this is all political for you and not about the facts?
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What are you talking about? If you want to private message, we can go back and forth over what the courts have ACTUALLY done (hint, they have refused to hear cases). We can discuss the nuts and bolts of what occurred.

    For ME, this is not about Biden/Trump, or Rep/Dem.

    In a "pandemic" you don't need to convince people that there is a problem. There are people dying everywhere. You don't have to incentivize safety procedures. People do it willingly because they don't want to die.

    The evidence is out there, if you're willing to look at it.

    Also, throwing out strawmen and ad hoc arguments only muddy the waters, and distract from the actual things that are being said.
     
    aesop likes this.
  35. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    He's saying COVID was politicized and since we can't talk about politics, that's where he stopped. But he's shared his COVID beliefs in depth here before the political campaigns even started last year, so your statement is not consistent with his actions. He's pretty much stuck to his guns this entire time that masks don't work and he will not be getting vaccinated.

    Personally, I don't agree with Resnor on any of his COVID beliefs, but everyone has a right to their own opinion on this site. We just can't talk about the political aspect here since that would get the thread edited and shut down.
     
    pumpdogs and resnor like this.
  36. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    4,323
    4,012
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    The problem with the facts about this virus is...who presents the "facts"...and/or is allow to present the "facts" from whomever is in control. We have been straight up lied to. About case numbers. About deaths numbers. But those are "the facts" your talking about I guess. It's ALL about controlling the population, the narrative and $$$$$.

    But again to bring it around to the NFL, we have an advantage if our team is vaccinated. Ang they're over the 85% threshold. Now they're talking about not testing those vaccinated for weed use. That should get some more of these guys on board. It's hilarious that people will smoke weed which most know nothing about what chemicals are in it but will rail against the vaccine because they don't know what's in it. Or the food they eat. OR the plastics they use.
     
    Hooligan and resnor like this.
  37. Fireland

    Fireland Well-Known Member

    1,461
    1,234
    113
    Dec 29, 2013
    Pass. I know what occurred and I know what some people think occurred. No point in going down that road.

    At the end of the day I am not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me so its best to leave it at that.
     
    pumpdogs and resnor like this.
  38. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    5,185
    2,907
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    I said this thread should be removed.
     
  39. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    ***********************READ THIS***********************
    This thread hasn't been removed because so far everyone has managed to conduct the discussion with some maturity on a subject that does touch on the NFL even if the conversation hasn't always had that focus. It's the off-season, so we're letting it go. You've also all been self-moderating to some extent.

    DO NOT wander off onto discussion of party politics etc. or I will be forced to close this thread.

    No one needs to comment on this post. Just get back on track and carry on.
    ***********************READ THIS***********************
     
  40. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    4,323
    4,012
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    So you're ok with him lying for the publics good. It's nice that you're so willing to give such power for him to make life and death decisions as he sees fit. That my friend is a very slippery slope. Where does that end? Him deciding that it's in the public good to do gain of function research to develop cures for these viruses and not tell anyone or tell the public they aren't so they won't shut it down since it's in the publics good? Or him deciding that only X group of people get the vaccine because they are what HE deems more important but he tells the public something different so they don't panic? Extreme. Maybe. Maybe not. Sorry but the one thing I learned through all of this is we gave up our freedoms WAY TO EASILY.

    Right now they are reinstating the mask mandate in LA county for even vaccinated people since case loads are 8 per 100,000. That's 80 per 1 MILLION. And this decision is being made by the Director of Public Health - an unelected official that is an appointee and doesn't even have a medical degree (she has a masters in education, masters of arts in public health and a bachelors in community studies - how are these qualifications for this position?). She also says its for the public's good. You may just believe everything they feed you but I have a real problem with this since I don't trust any politician. You know how you can tell a politician is lying?
    His lips are moving.
     
    resnor likes this.

Share This Page