Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

I realize that masks were worthless and did absolutely nothing but then, I didn't get covid twice until after the mandate went away.

Did anything else change in addition to the mask mandates being lifted?

"Social distancing" in the form of staying home when you're not feeling well is a time-tested way of not getting other people sick. When mask mandates were lifted, so were other mitigation measures. Data shows that mobility increased immensely once mask mandates were lifted. People were going more places and encountering more people. In terms of causation, it's much more likely that disease transmission increased with the increased mobility of people.

 

[probinson]

Because you don't think, you just argue.

You might disagree with me, but I don't "just argue". That's just a lazy way to try to discount the positions I have presented. I can't blame you. If you tried to address the evidence, you'd have to drop all the propaganda you've been fed. That can be quite jarring.

Ardern was very clear with her communications,

That's true. She made clear that you couldn't trust anyone but her government. Dismiss everything else, she said. We'll tell you what you need to know. Nothing Orwellian about that...

she let the NZ public know exactly what the goal was right from the beginning.

Yes she did. Complete government control of information was the goal. Mission accomplished!

 

[stevil]

You might disagree with me, but I don't "just argue".

That's what you are doing. This isn't a considered conversation. You are just arguing, arguing about stuff you have no idea about. Arguing about the spelling of words, arguing about, well, just arguing. Not listening, not understanding, not trying to apply grace to understand the concepts of what is being said. Just being pedantic, and again, trying to cherry pick, take things out of context, arguing about the definition of words, pulling out charts and misrepresenting the them. Just arguing for no reason.

That's true. She made clear that you couldn't trust anyone but her government. Dismiss everything else, she said. We'll tell you what you need to know. Nothing Orwellian about that...

USA right wing troupes.

Yes she did. Complete government control of information was the goal. Mission accomplished!

USA right wing troupes.

 

[stevil]

Did anything else change in addition to the mask mandates being lifted?

"Social distancing" in the form of staying home when you're not feeling well is a time-tested way of not getting other people sick.

Didn't you also claim that social distancing doesn't work?

 

[probinson]

That's what you are doing. This isn't a considered conversation.

It could be. But I don't think that's what you want.

You are just arguing, arguing about stuff you have no idea about.

You can pretend I "have no idea about" this if you like, but it's not true.

Arguing about the spelling of words, arguing about, well, just arguing.

To be fair, irradicate and eradicate are two completely different words with two completely different meanings. You'd think that since you're so graceful in your discussion techniques, you would acknowledge, recognize and correct your error.

Not listening, not understanding, not trying to apply grace to understand the concepts of what is being said.

Take a look in the mirror, bud. You have summarily discounted every scientific study I've posted that calls into question your preferred narrative.

Just being pedantic,

Guilty as charged. I am indeed a very pedantic person. I can also be quite understanding, when someone applies logic and reason to their talking points.

and again, trying to cherry pick, take things out of context, arguing about the definition of words, pulling out charts and misrepresenting the them.

How have I misrepresented anything on the charts I've posted? You keep saying that, but you offer no evidence.

Just arguing for no reason.

This is a lazy response, but it is what I've come to expect.

USA right wing troupes.

No, it's quite true. Arden went on TV to tell everyone they couldn't trust anyone but her and her government.

USA right wing troupes.

I'm laughing because I'm envisioning a right-wing "troupe".

 

[probinson]

Didn't you also claim that social distancing doesn't work?

"Social distancing" in the form of staying home when you are not feeling well is a time-tested strategy to keep disease to yourself.

"Social distancing™" in the form of staying 6 feet away from someone in public is pseudoscientific nonsense that has no evidence base.

 

[stevil]

To be fair, irradicate and eradicate are two completely different words with two completely different meanings. You'd think that since you're so graceful in your discussion techniques, you would acknowledge, recognize and correct your error.

Were ewe confuzzzed bout wot I sead? Given the contexed of the convasayshun?

You really were honestly wondering if I was claiming that NZ had enroot or fix firmly Covid?

 

[probinson]

Were ewe confuzzzed bout wot I sead? Given the contexed of the convasayshun?

You really were honestly wondering if I was claiming that NZ had enroot or fix firmly Covid?

No. I was correcting the word which you have consistently used incorrectly this entire conversation. Additionally, this isn't the first time we've had this conversation about NZ and COVID, and you've consistently used the wrong word in every conversation we've had. I am left to conclude that this is no longer a "mistake" but rather you believe you have been using the correct word.

You're not.

"Irradicated" and "eradicated" have polar opposite meanings. If you want to try to convince people that NZ "eradicated" a disease in which they've now had nearly double the case rate of the US, at least use the right word.

 

[stevil]

No. I was correcting the word which you have consistently used incorrectly this entire conversation.

OK, but I'm not here to learn English writing skills, not here to learn spelling or grammar.
If you understood what I was saying then why bother arguing about my spelling?

"Irradicated" and "eradicated" have polar opposite meanings. If you want to try to convince people that NZ "eradicated" a disease in which they've now had nearly double the case rate of the US, at least use the right word.

Do you understand that we did irradicate the disease but that it got reintroduced?
Or perhaps if you still have hangups about the word "irradicate" or "erradicate" to try and move beyond your issue with a word.

Do you understand that NZ completely removed the Sars-Cov-19 virus from our general population for a substantial period of time when our population hadn't been vaccinated?
Do you understand that this allowed us to go about our lives reasonably normally, without masks, without social distancing, without being shut up at home?


Do you understand that our goal was never to shut off NZ from the entire world forever, that we were simply buying time to get people eventually vaccinated?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you understand that NZ completely removed the Sars-Cov-19 virus from our general population for a substantial period of time when our population hadn't been vaccinated?
Do you understand that this allowed us to go about our lives reasonably normally, without masks, without social distancing, without being shut up at home?

And, as I'm sure you understand, NZ has some quite unique built-in geographical advantages in terms of being minimize vectors of transmission.

Even if NZ had the worst possible policy, and the US had the best possible policy, NZ would've still fared better during the pandemic.

I can cover that in more detail anyone would like.

 

[probinson]

OK, but I'm not here to learn English writing skills, not here to learn spelling or grammar.

Apparently, you're incapable of taking a simple correction.

If you understood what I was saying then why bother arguing about my spelling?

It's not a "spelling" error. They are two completely different words with completely opposite meanings.

Do you understand that we did irradicate the disease but that it got reintroduced?

No. I understand that you suppressed the disease for a short period of time before it came raging back. The evidence shows this to be the case.

Or perhaps if you still have hangups about the word "irradicate" or "erradicate" to try and move beyond your issue with a word.

If you want to continue to use the wrong word, that's certainly your prerogative. One would think now that you know the word is incorrect, you would use the correct word. But maybe not. Adapting to new information wasn't exactly the strong suit of those who believed all of the COVID propaganda.

Do you understand that NZ completely removed the Sars-Cov-19 virus from our general population for a substantial period of time when our population hadn't been vaccinated?

That would be the "SARS-CoV-2" virus, or "2019-nCoV" before it was given its official name.

But no. I understand that you suppressed the disease for a short period of time before it came raging back.

Do you understand that this allowed us to go about our lives reasonably normally, without masks, without social distancing, without being shut up at home?

No. I understand that NZ faced irrationally strict lockdown measures that were imposed by a dictatorial regime that made sure everyone knew that they could only trust the information that they supplied them. What was most surprising to me at the time were the number of people who willingly went along with it, not just in NZ, but everywhere in the world.

Do you understand that our goal was never to shut off NZ from the entire world forever, that we were simply buying time to get people eventually vaccinated?

Yes, I understand that was NZ's ostensible rationale for suppressing the disease, or rather, "flattening the curve", which they did successfully for a brief period of time.

Let's look at some additional data.

Here are the daily number of COVID cases in NZ from January 4, 2020 to January 26, 2022.

As you can see, while the number of cases were quite low, they were not in any way "eradicated". Regardless of where the cases originated, NZ only experienced a handful of days with zero cases. While I will agree that NZ was more successful than most in suppressing the disease (due in large part to the small population and the fact that NZ is a literal island), at no point could anyone look at this data and conclude that the disease had been "eradicated" from the country.

 

[stevil]

It's not a "spelling" error. They are two completely different words with completely opposite meanings.

blah, blah blah...

No. I understand that you suppressed the disease for a short period of time before it came raging back.

OK, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

If you want to continue to use the wrong word, that's certainly your prerogative. One would think now that you know the word is incorrect, you would use the correct word. But maybe not. Adapting to new information wasn't exactly the strong suit of those who believed all of the COVID propaganda.

blah, blah blah

That would be the "SARS-CoV-2" virus, or "2019-nCoV" before it was given its official name.

blah, blah

But no. I understand that you suppressed the disease for a short period of time before it came raging back.

Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

I gather than you never will understand, you don't listen.

No. I understand that NZ faced irrationally strict lockdown measures that were imposed by a dictatorial regime..

Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand. It's unfortunate that you resort to political USA right wing troupes, would be great if you wanted to listen and understand, I can clarify about the NZ situation, I lived through it, but I can't make you understand.

that made sure everyone knew that they could only trust the information that they supplied them. What was most surprising to me at the time were the number of people who willingly went along with it, not just in NZ, but everywhere in the world.

We saved lives, USA was unable to do so because of the right wing politicisation and the level of spite that went on over there.

Yes, I understand that was NZ's ostensible rationale for suppressing the disease, or rather, "flattening the curve", which they did successfully for a brief period of time.

No, you don't understand. We didn't just flatten the curve. Flattening the curve would be lowering the R0, the rate at which the disease spreads.
We completely removed the virus, noone in the general community was getting it, no one was getting sick, the R0 didn't apply because no one had the disease, not in the general population. That is not flattening of the curve.

But I doubt you will understand what I have just said.

As you can see, while the number of cases were quite low, they were not in any way "eradicated".

As I keep explaining, and as you keep ignoring or keep not understanding.
We had people coming in from overseas and staying in quarantine. Their infection numbers were counted, so we had a very slow, non exponential tick of Covid case, of people in quarantine, not in general population.
Do you understand these words? These sentences? Try to listen, try not to just have a knee jerk and argue.

 

[BPPLEE]

blah, blah blah...

OK, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

blah, blah blah



blah, blah

Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

I gather than you never will understand, you don't listen.


Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand. It's unfortunate that you resort to political USA right wing troupes, would be great if you wanted to listen and understand, I can clarify about the NZ situation, I lived through it, but I can't make you understand.



We saved lives, USA was unable to do so because of the right wing politicisation and the level of spite that went on over there.

No, you don't understand. We didn't just flatten the curve. Flattening the curve would be lowering the R0, the rate at which the disease spreads.
We completely removed the virus, noone in the general community was getting it, no one was getting sick, the R0 didn't apply because no one had the disease, not in the general population. That is not flattening of the curve.

But I doubt you will understand what I have just said.



As I keep explaining, and as you keep ignoring or keep not understanding.
We had people coming in from overseas and staying in quarantine. Their infection numbers were counted, so we had a very slow, non exponential tick of Covid case, of people in quarantine, not in general population.
Do you understand these words? These sentences? Try to listen, try not to just have a knee jerk and argue.

Blah, blah, blah sounds like trolling, especially coming from someone who complains about it so much

 

[stevil]

And, as I'm sure you understand, NZ has some quite unique built-in geographical advantages in terms of being minimize vectors of transmission.

Even if NZ had the worst possible policy, and the US had the best possible policy, NZ would've still fared better during the pandemic.

I can cover that in more detail anyone would like.

Well no, If a large amount of NZers refused to wear masks, refused to social distance, then we wouldn't have been able to irradicate the disease, we would likely have had thousands more people die, probably over three times as many as what we had.

We were able to achieve what we did, because our leaders were clear with their communication, were sticking to the science recommendations and our political parties acted in the best interest of the country and didn't politicise it and didn't fight against efforts to irradicate the disease.
I give big props, not just to the party in power (Labor) but also to the opposition party (National) for doing what was right.

 

[stevil]

Blah, blah, blah sounds like trolling, especially coming from someone who complains about it so much

The guy keeps going on about the spelling of a word, over and over and over and over, I've heard it multiple times in multiple posts, its getting in the way of discussing the things that actually matter.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well no, If a large amount of NZers refused to wear masks, refused to social distance, then we wouldn't have been able to irradicate the disease, we would likely have had thousands more people die, probably over three times as many as what we had.

We were able to achieve what we did, because our leaders were clear with their communication, were sticking to the science recommendations and our political parties acted in the best interest of the country and didn't politicise it and didn't fight against efforts to irradicate the disease.
I give big props, not just to the party in power (Labor) but also to the opposition party (National) for doing what was right.

NZ (a beautiful of a country BTW...it's Australia minus all the animals that will kill you) has built-in geographical advantages that make the nation tailor-made for slowing down virus transmission.

- It's an island, that's far away from other mainland areas (which goes without saying, makes it's much easier to control and track movements)

- It's far less densely populated, overall

- The areas that are densely populated are hours and hours away from each other.



Point of reference and real-world example...

I live in a "fly-over state" by US standards. Ohio.... often considered an insignificant state.

Even in our tiny little state, we have the cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Canton... they're only a 35-minute trip along the I-77 corridor.

Cleveland, Akron, and Canton would be the 2nd, 4th, and 5th largest cities in your country if they were in New Zealand.

People are constantly commuting between those 3 cities for jobs that were deemed essential.


If Christchurch, Wellington, and Hamilton were all a quick drive from each other that people were making as regular commutes for work & shopping (as opposed to being 4+ hours apart from each other), do you think NZ would've controlled the virus as well as they did?


The reality is, the US has metropolitan areas where the "commuter cities" outside of their borders have higher population density than your "major cities".

That's an advantage you guys had in terms of slowing down virus transmission.


New Zealand bragging about having less virus transmission is like Tampa Florida bragging about using fewer snow days for their schools.

 

[Laodicean60]

Apparently, you're incapable of taking a simple correction.

He'll call you names next because you're trolling him with your facts.

 

[BPPLEE]

The guy keeps going on about the spelling of a word, over and over and over and over, I've heard it multiple times in multiple posts, its getting in the way of discussing the things that actually matter.

And you used it again incorrectly in your last post.

 

[probinson]

blah, blah blah...

Why do you continue to use the wrong word? I've shown you that you're using the wrong word. Why are you refusing to make the correction? Are you really that stubborn that even now that you know you've been using the wrong word, you'll still continue to make the error out of spite?

OK, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

I "understand" just fine.

blah, blah blah

yada, yada, yada.

blah, blah

Compelling arguments.

Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand.

I gather than you never will understand, you don't listen.

Apparently in your world, I will only "understand" if I accept your faulty and evidence-poor explanations. But that's not going to happen.

Again, thanks for being honest that you don't understand. It's unfortunate that you resort to political USA right wing troupes,

"Tropes".

Seriously, a "troupe" is a company of actors, dancers or performers. A "trope" is an overused theme or device.

would be great if you wanted to listen and understand, I can clarify about the NZ situation, I lived through it, but I can't make you understand.

"Understanding" isn't achieved by accepting your faulty and evidence-poor explanations.

We saved lives, USA was unable to do so because of the right wing politicisation and the level of spite that went on over there.

Yes, I know that everyone who dutifully conformed to every nonsensical, evidence-poor mitigation measure believes that they "saved lives".

No, you don't understand.

Yes, yes I do.

We didn't just flatten the curve. Flattening the curve would be lowering the R0, the rate at which the disease spreads.

Yes, and that's exactly what you did. The chart I posted in the last post showed the number of cases per day. There were a handful of days where there were zero. Every other day there were new cases. Ergo, nothing was "eradicated".

It was a fool's errand from the outset to think you could "eradicate" a respiratory virus.

Heck, even Jacinda Arden stated.

"The number of cases that each person with the virus passes it on to is now 0.48, less than half a person each. Overseas, the average is 2.5 people, so we have among the lowest number of confirmed cases per 100,000 people in the world."​

​

100 days without COVID-19: how New Zealand got rid of a virus that keeps spreading across the world

New Zealand is one of a small number of countries that have managed to eliminate community transmission of COVID-19. It’s now reached a 100-day milestone with no new cases in the community.

theconversation.com

​

Clearly, she is referring to R0.

NZ was simply ecstatic when there was 100 days of no community COVID transmission. As if 100 days of no disease transmission is the definition for disease "eradication" (Spoiler alert: It's not. Returning to another hot-button issue, the WHO defines elimination of measles as "The absence of endemic measles transmission in a defined geographical area (e.g. region or country) for ≥12 months in the presence of a well-performing surveillance system.)

We completely removed the virus,

You did not. The data shows that there were a minimal number of cases. And they kept coming back. Remember the on again/off again lockdowns? Why would they have been necessary if the virus was "completely removed"?

noone in the general community was getting it, no one was getting sick,

Yes. For a very short period of time. Disease suppression.

That is not flattening of the curve.

That's exactly what it is.

But I doubt you will understand what I have just said.

I "understand" what you said. It's just wrong.

As I keep explaining, and as you keep ignoring or keep not understanding.

Speaking of "ignoring" things, are you ever going get around to addressing the studies I posted that showed a perfect correlation between the increase in the number of infections with an increase in the number of vaccine doses? I know you made a lame attempt to post something from factcheck.org, but the article didn't address either study I posted.

We had people coming in from overseas and staying in quarantine. Their infection numbers were counted, so we had a very slow, non exponential tick of Covid case, of people in quarantine, not in general population.

They were still in NZ! Sheesh. You wouldn't think it would be this hard. You suppressed the disease and flattened the curve for a short period of time. Then it came raging back and you had far more cases than many other countries. This is not the definition of disease "eradication".

Do you understand these words? These sentences? Try to listen, try not to just have a knee jerk and argue.

I do. I "understand" every word you've typed. Every sentence you've articulated. Every piece of propaganda you've regurgitated. I also "understand" that you seem to think that people don't "understand" things unless they agree with you. But I'm sorry to inform you, that's not how "understanding" works.

 

[probinson]

We were able to achieve what we did, because our leaders were clear with their communication, were sticking to the science recommendations and our political parties acted in the best interest of the country and didn't politicise it and didn't fight against efforts to irradicate the disease.
I give big props, not just to the party in power (Labor) but also to the opposition party (National) for doing what was right.

Ahem... "eradicate".

We've already established that the "science recommendations" you continue to hail had absolutely no science behind them. In fact, the science that did exist for masking was quite clear that they were ineffective at reducing the transmission of respiratory viruses.

This really isn't that hard to "understand"

The only way a face mask provides ANY protection from respiratory virus spread is if it is fitted and sealed to your face. Simply slapping a surgical mask on your face and pretending you were "protected" from respiratory viral infection was always nonsensical and illogical.

Here is yet ANOTHER study that shows why.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2025.2453587?src=&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Here is an article explaining that study's findings. Basically, a very small gap in the mask is enough to render the mask COMPLETELY USELESS.

This is, however, not unexpected. Excerpt 7 shows the results of a study done in early 2020 showing filtration efficiencies for different types of masks with gaps of 1%, and without. Based on this, it seems that the high-end range of the error bars in the plot above likely correspond to the times when the researchers were able to keep the gap closer to 1%, and the lower end when those gaps were larger. Extrapolation from a study by Drewnick et al, suggests that just a 3.2% gap would be sufficient to render a surgical mask 0% effective—the data presented in excerpt 6 above would seem to corroborate that.​

​

If "masks work", why don't they work? New research suggests the reason.

A recently released study investigating the efficacy of masks at filtering aerosols in the 0.2 - 1 micron range, suggests answers to the disconnect between the results of mechanistic studies and RCTs.

emilyburns.substack.com

​

​

Now be honest. Do you think that most people wearing masks in public during COVID had them fitted and sealed to their faces such that there was not a larger than 3,.2% gap? Of course not. Heck, even a little bit of stubble on your face could create a gap much larger than 3.2%. And that's all it takes to render a surgical mask 0% effective.

Keep in mind, these aren't my opinions. This is what the evidence shows.