ADVERTISEMENT

Place to put my Nonsense Thread.

241773113-253552586627317-2019071877568856754-n.jpg
 
without any research, these are my immediate thoughts:

- Mongolia is a very rural country and its cities are tiny. There isn’t much travel in and out of the country. It’s not surprising that Covid didn’t catch on there quickly.

- There’s a very strong chance that their cases only get reported when somebody is severely ill and their impoverished citizens don’t trek to the hospital for the sniffles. That would explain the close relationship between cases and deaths.

- We don’t know the makeup of who is dying. Vaccinated or unvaccinated? What is the split?

- We know that the vaccines can’t cause Covid and we know they can’t make the body less resistant to Covid. What would the spike in Covid cases look like if there were no vaccinations? Probably worse.

- Variants are a challenge with all vaccines (like the flue vaccine). Vaccine effectiveness also wains at a certain point after vaccination.

- I’m guessing medicine in Mongolia isn’t superb. I don’t think we’d be shocked if many of the deaths are in homes with little/no medical treatment.
I am a science guy and science is completely based on questioning knowns and unknowns and then testing the hell out of them. I think everyone should be questioning the vaccines and we should have people answering them in an open and honest way. (When I say questioning them, I dont mean idiots on facebook that have made their minds up.) They should say we dont know when they don't know. They should say its a work in progress and they are constantly working to find a better and more effective way. I think both sides could debate and question more effectively.

All statistics should be analyzed and spoken about, even when they may undermine previous "knowns" or results. As the actual ones taking it, shouldnt we all be pushing for more info and questioning it? I dont have the time or energy, nor care enough, to convince someone to take it or convince someone not to take it. It does rub me the wrong way how people aren't allowed to question it though. (again, the way its questioned needs work) It bothers me that we can't get more answers and the CDC and FDA play word games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
I am a science guy and science is completely based on questioning knowns and unknowns and then testing the hell out of them. I think everyone should be questioning the vaccines and we should have people answering them in an open and honest way. (When I say questioning them, I dont mean idiots on facebook that have made their minds up.) They should say we dont know when they don't know. They should say its a work in progress and they are constantly working to find a better and more effective way. I think both sides could debate and question more effectively.

All statistics should be analyzed and spoken about, even when they may undermine previous "knowns" or results. As the actual ones taking it, shouldnt we all be pushing for more info and questioning it? I dont have the time or energy, nor care enough, to convince someone to take it or convince someone not to take it. It does rub me the wrong way how people aren't allowed to question it though. (again, the way its questioned needs work) It bothers me that we can't get more answers and the CDC and FDA play word games.

Reminds me of this quote by Richard Feynman, who won the Nobel Prize in physics.

Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, "How does science show it - how did the scientists find out - how, what, where?" Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at."
 
  • Like
Reactions: toonces11
So you're nominating Toonces for a Nobel Prize? Hitler was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1939, probably by Brooky's grandpa.

Hah. Yes, exactly!

My browser history would eliminate me from contention.to believe otherwise is to believe the absurd notion that God doesn't know where truth is found or that he doesn't have the power to show it unto us.

If Obama can be nominated for a Nobel Prize after being in office for 11 days, then you can be nominated for a shady browser history.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT