I know two people who died from Sars-CoV-2, do you know anyone?

[jonetsu]

Can you do the same exercise with the VAERS database ?

You do it. Or go back to making cabinets.

Where is the scientific spirit ?

Note to Raboof. The person is targeted. Not the arguments or metaphors used in discussion.

[robbert-vdh]

It's spread by aerosols, and those are so small the mask don´t help.

Watch and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tp0zB904Mc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y47t9qLc9I4

And why N95 masks are extra effective (it's not the size of the holes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdanPfQdCA

It seems that a lot of science talk is needed to prove the efficiency.

So simple tests such as this one can be obfuscated ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkdTyZ9xd_g

I hate to break the news to you, but viruses are not spread through vaping. And yes, these kinds of masks don't completely stop aerosols from spreading. Instead they reduce their spread, slowing and diverging particles so they won't travel as far as they would without a mask. This effect is demonstrated in the videos you replied to. There's another video linked in this article debunking the video you posted that shows that these kinds of masks (and N95 masks which your video didn't cover) when properly used do reduce the spread of vape smoke. But neither of these videos are scientific proof of anything and they're purely anecdotal.

Also, could you please stop quadruple posting? This fills up the thread quite a lot. Thanks!

[merlyn]

Where is the scientific spirit ?

I'll tell you where you're going wrong. You've started with a conclusion. You already have a conclusion and selectively choose data that fits. This is a logical fallacy called cherry picking.

To be more scientific start with the data. Then take logical steps from the data to reach a conclusion.

[jonetsu]

Where is the scientific spirit ?

I'll tell you where you're going wrong. You've started with a conclusion. You already have a conclusion and selectively choose data that fits. This is a logical fallacy called cherry picking.

To be more scientific start with the data. Then take logical steps from the data to reach a conclusion.

So you do not want to look into the numbers reported by VAERS and EudraVigilance official databases, isn't it ?

Looking into the official numbers you like, but not other official numbers and then saying what ? Something about cherry picking ?

[jonetsu]

I hate to break the news to you but viruses are not spread through vaping.

You mean, the virus got killed by the products involved in vaping ?

... debunking the video you posted that shows that these kinds of masks (and N95 masks which your video didn't cover) when properly used do reduce the spread of vape smoke. But neither of these videos are scientific proof of anything and they're purely anecdotal.

Er, there are other examples out there that includes N95 masks.

Also, could you please stop quadruple posting? This fills up the thread quite a lot. Thanks!

Thanks for the suggestion !

I'm replying to each one though and will not gang up all replies in a single reply. It'll take too much time to get the quote information such as:

quote=robbert-vdh post_id=133758 time=1622896871 user_id=1803

that the software automatically produces when replying.

It's doable although I will do as the majority do: I will use the reply function.

Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[jonetsu]

Just a note about a question that's still left open:

Is the spike protein remaining in the muscle at more or less the point of injection ?

[robbert-vdh]

You mean, the virus got killed by the products involved in vaping ?

No, I'm saying that you cannot take anecdotal evidence for one thing, and then use that as proof for another thing that may appear to be similar but is not quite the same as the other thing.

[jonetsu]

You mean, the virus got killed by the products involved in vaping ?

No, I'm saying that you cannot take anecdotal evidence for one thing, and then use that as proof for another thing that may appear to be similar but is not quite the same as the other thing.

Large particles are flowing out of the masks. Most people can see it.

[jonetsu]

As you very well know we think using words.

Anyone still thinks that the definition of "pandemic" still has to do with lethality, deaths or even, affecting people ?

Because obviously that's not the case. Anymore.

The WHO:

"Risk is assessed by anticipation of severity and precaution should be calibrated to risk. As Doshi has argued, we need to redefine pandemic influenza. We can then describe the potential severity range of future pandemics. Finally, we need to use evidence to assess severity early to anticipate risk."

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/

All fine to anticipate in some way.

Hopefully no-one on Earth today is actually scared by the word "pandemic" somewhere in his/her (sub)consciousness because there's no need to.

If you start to panic when a potential aggressor is making big eyes at you then you will be less able to defend yourself.

[sunrat]

@jonetsu your words are not working. Your postulations are full of logical fallacies. Please return to making music. You are pretty good at that.

[jonetsu]

@jonetsu your words are not working. Your postulations are full of logical fallacies. Please return to making music. You are pretty good at that.

Go tell the WHO ? (Not Peter Townsend)

"Risk is assessed by anticipation of severity and precaution should be calibrated to risk. As Doshi has argued, we need to redefine pandemic influenza. We can then describe the potential severity range of future pandemics. Finally, we need to use evidence to assess severity early to anticipate risk."

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/

Otherwise, can you explain, in your own words, in which way it was redefined ?

Your postulations are full of logical fallacies

If I'm not mistaken this is a discussion. Not an academic forum introducing papers.

So in the course of discussion, can your qualify this fullness ?

If not, it borders on the personal, again.

Without the description of this fullness it equates to a "shut up".

[jonetsu]

Another question related to this discussion:

Anyone know about the immune system ?

And optionally how it relates to the so-called "covid passports" ?

[Gps]

As you very well know we think using words.

Anyone still thinks that the definition of "pandemic" still has to do with lethality, deaths or even, affecting people ?

Because obviously that's not the case. Anymore.

The WHO:

"Risk is assessed by anticipation of severity and precaution should be calibrated to risk. As Doshi has argued, we need to redefine pandemic influenza. We can then describe the potential severity range of future pandemics. Finally, we need to use evidence to assess severity early to anticipate risk."

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-088815/en/

All fine to anticipate in some way.

Hopefully no-one on Earth today is actually scared by the word "pandemic" somewhere in his/her (sub)consciousness because there's no need to.

If you start to panic when a potential aggressor is making big eyes at you then you will be less able to defend yourself.

They don;t wanna hear it, although I don't understand why.

To be able to call covid 19 a pandemic, they changed the definition, as you have shown.

Its easier to fool people, then to convince them there are being fooled.

Edit:
Although I am sceptical on the stuff I read online, I serious hope this will work out.

https://rumble.com/vgdl3f-dr-reiner-fue ... demic.html

I am not holding my breath though, first want to see if this is actual happening.

[merlyn]

So you do not want to look into the numbers reported by VAERS and EudraVigilance official databases, isn't it ?

Looking into the official numbers you like, but not other official numbers and then saying what ? Something about cherry picking ?

Yes, cherry picking is one of the logical fallacies in your posts. Your posts also have a lot of non sequiturs, in addition to too many rhetorical questions that don't go anywhere and faulty metaphors.

I have some data points to add to the discussion. I have had one Astra-Zeneca jab. I felt tired the next day. Most people I know have had one or two jabs of Pfizer or Astra-Zeneca and there have been no serious side effects. One person I know had flu like symptoms for a couple of days. That's it.

So, no, there is not a lot of relevance in vaccine side effect databases to me.

[Loki Harfagr]

In case some folks here can find some spare time to make any music I offer there, free as in free and free as in beer (though I'd have another beer please), two brand shiny titles you can use on most any beloved style:

"It's raining cabs"
"Everybody is PEBCAK fighting"