If booster is useless or worse, what is the point of any of this?

[power1]

Not so. Past performance is best predictor of future behavior.

Not with covid vaccines. We know they have decreasing effectivness. Variants also change things. For example Israel is dropping a lot of travel restrictions because they are a joke now with Omicron.
"It will also likely remove the red state designation, as once Omicron is dominant in the country, there will be no epidemiological basis for this classification."
Israel lifts COVID-19 travel ban on most states, US and Canada remain

So the former performances were not a predictor after all!

Mainstream media, which is a combination of separate news sources, all competing for reputation, have done much better than any single source with no reputation over the past two hundred years of journalism, starting with the big national newspapers, then later radio and television networks. InfoWars has no such pedigree, and such a pedigree as it does have is for falsehoods.

Don't think so, they are a cesspool of bias and baloney.

That might be true if there actually were tens of thousands of experts, whistleblowers and witnesses and victims that are saying what claim they are saying. But their aren't, despite InfoWars claims to the contrary.

In the Barrington declaration alone there was that if I recall.

You could say it, but it would not be true, because the people that are reported about by the mainstream media can be confirmed by multiple independent sources. Not so with your InfoWars stories.

You can say that stats are verified but that is false as well as ridiculous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Past performance is best predictor of future behavior.

Not with covid vaccines.

I was referring to sources of information, not vaccines.

Don't think so, they are a cesspool of bias and baloney.

If you think so, that is your privilege.

In the Barrington declaration alone there was that if I recall.

First it was InfoWars, and now its the Libertarian free-market think tank, (Barrington Declaration). No chance of bias there, eh? As for all the "signatures", anyone can sign the declaration. The signatories are not verified. An on-line petition is the worst possible way to measure public opinion. An on-line petition that accepts unverified signatures is the worst possible way to measure expert opinion.

 

[power1]

I was referring to sources of information, not vaccines.

I see. Well, the bias in mainstream media has been glaring and unbearable for a while now. What can I say? They are fired, and I consider them liars.

First it was InfoWars, and now its the Libertarian free-market think tank, (Barrington Declaration).

Right. What about it? There were over ten thousand people in the medical field who signed that if I remember right. As for infowars, that seems to be a big commercial these days. Nevertheless they do get some good interviews with interesting people sometimes.

No chance of bias there, eh? As for all the "signatures", anyone can sign the declaration.

You feel there was a conspracy? How about the doctors who organized that? Are they really something else? "Sunetra Gupta (born 15 March 1965)[2] is an Indian-born British infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

The signatories are not verified.

By who?

An on-line petition is the worst possible way to measure public opinion

Who made you the dictator of how opinion is gauged?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I see. Well, the bias in mainstream media has been glaring and unbearable for a while now.

Different news organizations have different biases, but as a whole, they do not all have the same bias. When you find something that is reported by numerous independent sources, that is more trustworthy than something that is reported by just one source. Especially if that one source has a history of reporting things that no one else is reporting.

Right. What about it? There were over ten thousand people in the medical field who signed that if I remember right.

Since the signatures were never verified, there is no way to tell if those so-called signatures were really from people who know what they are talking about. As I said, on-line unverified signatures mean absolutely nothing.

As for infowars, that seems to be a big commercial these days. Nevertheless they do get some good interviews with interesting people sometimes.

That depends on the kind of interviews you like to see. Interviews are not news. They are just some person saying what he or she thinks. Investigative reporting is news.

You feel there was a conspracy?

There is no need for a conspiracy to get 10,000 signatures. Just make it super easy for anyone to sign and if the petition is interesting enough, you will get 10,000 people to sign. After all, there must be hundreds of millions of people on the internet. Any one of them could sign the petition, and claim they were Dr. Fauci or maybe Dr. Nick Riviera, most likely. I'll bet there is at least one Dr. Nick Riviera listed. Can you check and see?

How about the doctors who organized that?

There are outliers in every profession. They do not necessarily represent the profession.

By who?

The signatures are not verified by anyone at all. Not even the Great Barrington Declaration people that started the petition claim that they verified the credentials of every signature.

Who made you the dictator of how opinion is gauged?

You are free to dictate your view on how opinion should best be gauged, and then let the readers decide which makes the most sense to them.

 

[power1]

Different news organizations have different biases, but as a whole, they do not all have the same bias. When you find something that is reported by numerous independent sources, that is more trustworthy than something that is reported by just one source. Especially if that one source has a history of reporting things that no one else is reporting.

All the mainstream news basically ignored the election fraud as well as did nothing about the silly covid stat fraud. They also are biased on many issues, and places like twittforbrains and farcebook have censored truth in a way that can't be denied.

Since the signatures were never verified, there is no way to tell if those so-called signatures were really from people who know what they are talking about. As I said, on-line unverified signatures mean absolutely nothing.

Or not. So if all else fails we know the ones who started the petition had credos. We also can see nurses and doctors all over the place who testify to a con going on. That is not an issue. The issue is only who you chose to believe or not.

That depends on the kind of interviews you like to see. Interviews are not news. They are just some person saying what he or she thinks. Investigative reporting is news.

When so called news is heavily censored nonsense and propaganda, sincere professionals who quit or were fired for the truth are very relevant.

There are outliers in every profession. They do not necessarily represent the profession.

There are also liars in the professions. Some are exposed as such repeatedly. Others have compelling testimonies as well as qualifications and experience that are well worth consideration.

You are free to dictate your view on how opinion should best be gauged, and then let the readers decide which makes the most sense to them.

Right, as we all should be. I think Trump coined it right in saying it was fake news.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For those of you looking for a good example of circular reasoning (or "begging the question" as Aristotle called it) consider the following argument by power1:

All the mainstream news basically ignored the election fraud as well as did nothing about the silly covid stat fraud.

This is the continuing of an argument for the credibility of such news sources as InfoWars as compared to mainstream media. On the surface this may not seem like circular reasoning, but consider how the full argument would go. In an effort to prove the relative untrustworthiness of mainstream media, and by implication, the reputability of such sources as InfoWars, power1 offers an example of something the mainstream media got wrong while InfoWars got it right. However the example "facts" (election fraud and covid stat fraud) are themselves not facts unless one trusts the sources that say they are facts. That would be sources like InfoWars. So in order to prove InfoWars is trustworthy (at least as compared to mainstream media) one must start by assuming InfoWars is trustworthy, at which point the circularity of the reasoning is obvious.

Or not. So if all else fails we know the ones who started the petition had credos.

All else has failed. The weight given to an expert opinion is established either by the sheer number of ordinary experts that support the given opinion, or by the outstanding and exceptional credentials of the few experts who hold that opinion. In the case of Great Barrington Declaration, we have neither a significant number of verified experts, nor one or two really exceptional experts. On the other hand we do have an overwhelming majority of experts in public health that directly contradict the Barrington Declaration.

We also can see nurses and doctors all over the place who testify to a con going on.

Here we see the word "We" being used to elevate the perception of the poster to the level of a universal perception, which of course cannot be done without direct justification.

That is not an issue. The issue is only who you chose to believe or not.

When you put it that way, I agree. We can either chose to believe Sunetra Gupta, or we can choose to believe the vast majority of public health officials (who are every bit as credentialed as Mr. Gupta) in the various states and at the CDC.

When so called news is heavily censored nonsense and propaganda, sincere professionals who quit or were fired for the truth are very relevant.

This isn't exactly circular reasoning, but it is an appeal to facts that have not been established and frankly have no chance of being established because they are false.

 

[power1]

All else has failed. The weight given to an expert opinion is established either by the sheer number of ordinary experts that support the given opinion, or by the outstanding and exceptional credentials of the few experts who hold that opinion. In the case of Great Barrington Declaration, we have neither a significant number of verified experts, nor one or two really exceptional experts. On the other hand we do have an overwhelming majority of experts in public health that directly contradict the Barrington Declaration.

Choose who to believe then. If some expert was making money on the problem, why would we believe them? We can and should look for people that we believe are being honest. That way their experience and expertise is not the only factor. It is all a matter of trust.

Here we see the word "We" being used to elevate the perception of the poster to the level of a universal perception, which of course cannot be done without direct justification.

Your we would not be mine.

When you put it that way, I agree. We can either chose to believe Sunetra Gupta, or we can choose to believe the vast majority of public health officials (who are every bit as credentialed as Mr. Gupta) in the various states and at the CDC.

Yes we can. And I chose not to believe a word they say.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Choose who to believe then. .....We can and should look for people that we believe are being honest.

Since we don't know these experts personally, we would have no way of knowing which ones have an honest character. But what judging on the basis of who strikes us as "honest" often turns into is simply selecting on the basis of who is saying what we want to hear. In other words, whoever most confirms our biases are the ones who will impress us as being more "honest." That is what I do not trust my own intuitive judgement of who looks honest. Instead I trust objective measures like "how many other experts agree with him?" That way it becomes a matter of counting rather than a matter of subjective intuition.

That way their experience and expertise is not the only factor. It is all a matter of trust.

And we tend to trust those who confirm what we already believe. (Confirmation bias.)

Yes we can. And I chose not to believe a word they say.

Probably because they are saying things you do not want to hear. That makes sense.

 

[Yarddog]

Society these days is racing toward a Satanic dictatorship that seeks to force it's way on all.

Yes but people still vote for right wing politicians who are doing this.

 

[power1]

Since we don't know these experts personally, we would have no way of knowing which ones have an honest character.

You could say that about anyone. Seeing a video or listening to people can give us some sense of where they are at. Looking at other folks like Dr F in the US, all I see is smugness, contradictory stories, possible conflict of interest and yechiness.

But what judging on the basis of who strikes us as "honest" often turns into is simply selecting on the basis of who is saying what we want to hear.

Philosophy aside, when people quit jobs to testify to save lives and such I think that has more weight than someone that gives me the creeps.

In other words, whoever most confirms our biases are the ones who will impress us as being more "honest." That is what I do not trust my own intuitive judgement of who looks honest. Instead I trust objective measures like "how many other experts agree with him?" That way it becomes a matter of counting rather than a matter of subjective intuition.

Firstly, many things are known like the agenda being pushed on us, the dangers of the vaccine, the media bias, the abortion connection and etc etc. So we should look for people that admit the truth and try to do something about it. When some pulpit pounding covid agenda preachers talk, we automatically know they are lying if their mouth is moving.

 

[power1]

Yes but people still vote for right wing politicians who are doing this.

I hear you

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Choose who to believe then. If some expert was making money on the problem, why would we believe them?

I'm curious as to why you think someone making money is the main determinant on whether or not you should believe them.

I mean, should you believe your accountant that bills you hourly to do your taxes? Of course, it's his line of work. Quite the no brainer.

Should you believe your mechanic that you pay money for to fix you car problem?

I could go on.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Since we don't know these experts personally, we would have no way of knowing which ones have an honest character. But what judging on the basis of who strikes us as "honest" often turns into is simply selecting on the basis of who is saying what we want to hear. In other words, whoever most confirms our biases are the ones who will impress us as being more "honest." That is what I do not trust my own intuitive judgement of who looks honest. Instead I trust objective measures like "how many other experts agree with him?" That way it becomes a matter of counting rather than a matter of subjective intuition.


And we tend to trust those who confirm what we already believe. (Confirmation bias.)


Probably because they are saying things you do not want to hear. That makes sense.

100% on the bolded. Ditto on the finding others that are on the same page with other experts/doctors/immunologists

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You could say that about anyone.

That's right. I could say of anyone that I cannot judge their honesty from afar through a YouTube video. That's why I don't rely on such judgements for my epistemology. You apparently do.

Seeing a video or listening to people can give us some sense of where they are at.

Seeing a video or listening to people can also give you a sense of how much they support what your already believe, which will in turn color your perception of their honesty. Those who repeat what you want to hear will appear honest to you. Those who challenge your preconceptions will appear smug and with all sorts of yechiness. To wit:

Looking at other folks like Dr F in the US, all I see is smugness, contradictory stories, possible conflict of interest and yechiness.

Q.E.D.

Philosophy aside, when people quit jobs to testify to save lives and such I think that has more weight than someone that gives me the creeps.

You can only assume why someone quit their jobs, if indeed they are even telling the truth about quitting their jobs. Check your epistemology.

Firstly, many things are known like the agenda being pushed on us, the dangers of the vaccine, the media bias, the abortion connection and etc etc.

As I explained before, this is circular reasoning. It assumes to be true that which you are trying to prove. It is a fallacy.

So we should look for people that admit the truth and try to do something about it.

That assumes you already know what the truth is. Using this criteria to find the truth is circular reasoning. To break out of circular reasoning one must establish an objective standard for how to know truth (a valid epistemology) that is not dependent on knowing that same truth beforehand.

 

[cow451]

Not with covid vaccines.
So the former performances were not a predictor after all!

I believe the poster was referencing human behavior. For instance, a person that has made wise decisions in the past is likely to continue doing so and vice versa.

 

[cow451]

Right, as we all should be. I think Trump coined it right in saying it was fake news.

EX President Trump also said to get vaccinated.

 

[rturner76]

Right, as we all should be. I think Trump coined it right in saying it was fake news.

The Right-wing media puts out more unproven facts and opinion pieces than anybody. Conspiracy blogs and sites abound on the right. Very little actual fact-checking. Unless you count "I heard disgruntled employees say what I already believe in my heart so that proves it."

 

[miamited]

Hi @power1

Not with covid vaccines. We know they have decreasing effectivness. Variants also change things. For example Israel is dropping a lot of travel restrictions because they are a joke now with Omicron.
"It will also likely remove the red state designation, as once Omicron is dominant in the country, there will be no epidemiological basis for this classification."
Israel lifts COVID-19 travel ban on most states, US and Canada remain

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. You keep posting articles that have titles that you apparently think support your position, but if you bothered to read them at all, you'd see that they don't,... if you're able to understand what you're reading.

God bless,
Ted

 

[power1]

I'm curious as to why you think someone making money is the main determinant on whether or not you should believe them.

I mean, should you believe your accountant that bills you hourly to do your taxes? Of course, it's his line of work. Quite the no brainer.

Should you believe your mechanic that you pay money for to fix you car problem?

I could go on.

I think they call it conflict of interest. I someone, for example funded or helped conduct lab experiments on germ warfare or some such, I would not want you involved in finding solutions to a viral outbreak similar to what you may have been working on. Especially is you also were invested in drug companies profiting from it. Etc If you were a politician taking money from vaccine companies, I would not want you pushing a vaccine agenda. etc

 

[miamited]

Hi again @power1

Israel has lifted some 69 countries which were previously banned for Israelis to fly....TO.

Those countries still carry quarantine restrictions when the flyer returns from them, back to Israel. So no, this article isn't saying anything about Israel thinking that the omicron variant isn't dangerous. They just don't think that their vaccinated citizens who fly to these countries are likely to die or need hospitalization while away from home. What the part you quoted is saying is that once omicron is the dominant variation in Isreal, there will be no epidemiological designation to stop people with it from entering the country, because such a ban as keeping people who might have it from coming to Israel will no longer be effective at keeping the omicron variant out.

The inbound travel restrictions were set in place to hopefully keep the covid and its variants from coming into the country, but once they are already in, and are a dominant condition within Israel, then keeping inbound people our, just altogether, will no longer be effective. But they are still requiring covid vaccination proofs and quarantines for all those who aren't vaccinated or haven't produced a negative test result.

It's all about understanding what one is reading that makes news articles valuable to us.

God bless,
Ted