Mason Malmuth's Thoughts on COVID vaccines (Warning: O/t thread)

let Dave explain.

Or AI. Read it as AL, nice and knowledgeable guy:

But, but, H***Daddy** informed us that, "You had less deaths in the initial months of covid than 30-60 days after the vaccine was made publicly available."

He has intimated that if the vaccines had worked, hardly anyone would have died in those first two months. How could anybody argue against that logic?

Because it was increasing. Even more people would have died without the vaccine. And more of them not taking it did. You needed time and boosters also for the vaccine to kick in fully.

@ plaaynde
I could be wrong but reading that comment from MH my irony-radar went off quite a bit

Ha, ha, you are right. Guess facts need to be spelled out.

Got vaxxed. Still alive

Bummer, that

Remember guys the virus could spread if you attended church or wanted to go on a hike outside or if you wanted to go to the beach, but the virus respected black lives matters protests. Couldn't attend church the government would imprison you but if you wanted to burn down a Wendys that was copacetic.

Don't trust the government.

Also the vaccine had higher risk for younger populations and less reward. It should not have been universally recommended.

Also also anyone who's never heard of the Great Barrington Declaration should not speak so authoritatively about how lockdowns were the correct response. You are not informed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barr...

I wonder what those protests were about.

Not that I give two shits about people’s vaccination status, live your truth and ‘your body my choice forever’ only applies to a specific group anyway

But I am curious what the Venn diagram looks like with anti-vaxxers and GLP1 users and if even a hint of irony is realized

Is "goldendiapers" an honorific to what your personal idol, the Orange Assclown, wears every day? You might want to look deep inside yourself about that last line. I suspect there are a LOT of things where that applies in your life.

You're right, the COVID vaccination and the world shutdown saved millions of lives. Which comes out to about a .2% more success rate then doing nothing.

GOT EMMMMMMM

by HungDaddy69 m

The vaccines worked so well, that we had record numbers of cases and deaths directly following the vaccine being made publicly available.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths

Our World in Data

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Deaths

You had less deaths in the initial months of covid than 30-60 days after the vaccine was made publicly available. How does that suggest that it saved so many lives?

It.

This dude is a rocket scientist who also performs brain surgeries while playing 5D chess with Trump.

I’m still struggling with the moronic premise of the original thread

‘Haxton is ruining poker by wearing a mask’

Are you serious with this ****? Lol. If you don’t have to why do you give a **** what he does? It’s almost like you want to mandate what haxton does and is comfortable with to conform what you demand of others

People love nattering on about their beloved "peer review" studies as if that vaunted status doesn't systematically exclude maverick voices such as Mason's by design. Beg the question much?

Better lab security would’ve saved more lives than the vaccines.

Dred Scott was 7-2 and Korematsu was 6-3, but at least both were most definitively peer-reviewed.

Hell, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed 96-2 and both Nays lost their next elections. Talk about the ultimate peer reviews. And one of the was from Oregon!

As for “science” & exthpurts:

Spoiler

Show

You sir must not be aware of Mason's extensive statistical work undertaken with the census bureau, including at times having to work in slightly chilly conditions due to Jimmy Carter.

Care to discuss Poker, Poker Tournaments, heck even patent law you have some basis for the consideration of your opinion with a higher degree of respect than the average poster.

But when it comes to Health issues ? Really Greg ? Health issues ?
It goes double when it has anything to do with the current administration. In those situations your complete bias comes screaming thru.

Stick to Gaming issues or I guess you could go down the libertarian election path again as is your absolute right.

lmao you could have looked up what peer-review is before embarrassing yourself like this

Good point. Only people versed in the topic like noted science bigwig HungDaddy69 should be allowed to offer their views

Do you really think that is his logic? That is absolutely hilarious if you think that is his logic. Here is a hint. His comment wasn't about greed or corruption. It was about science and trusting it.

That is simply not true. As someone who dealt with reletives with opoid addiction in the 80's it was very well know that opiods could be addicitive. Heck football players who retired around then talked about it. When I had knee surgery in the early 90's the potential for opioid addiction was clearly explained to me by my doctor who was ancient.

For one, you need to understand the difference between a scientificly peer reviewed study and a letter to the editor.

For two, it is absolutely hilarious you think that COVID deaths being at their highest during the time of the inital release of the vaccine is evidence of the vaccines being more dangerous than COVID itself. It is almost loke you don't understand how the world works and therefore that you use sources of information that take advantage of you.

For three, fine, if you don't want to understand science. Don't. But then who are you going to trust instead of science? Talking heads on TV who confirm your views? Crazy nuts who post YouTube videos from their basements? Who do you trust and why?

Here is a question to drive this point home. If you suddenly feel pains in your chest and it feels like an elephant is standing on you. What are you going to do? Are you going to search YouTube for "cures" and do whatever Joe Idiot posts from his basement? Or are you going to call 911, take an ambulance go to the hospital and enter a system that was trained using science?

For four, you really need a better understanding of how science (more specifically the scientific method) works. Seriously. It is very clear you don't understand it at all.

For five, saying that someone who thinks you should trust the science is naive because they don't realize there is corruption or human greed involved is the dumbest thing to say.

Here is a clue, every single person who says "trust the science" fully understands that there is corruption and human greed involved. Those are human traits. There is corruption and human greed involved in every single thing humans do. Do you think corruption and human greed do not affect the sources you trust?

But if you actually understood science and the scientific method, you would realize that science roots out corruption and false results faster than any other endeavor. That is because true science is supposed to be peer reviewed and reproducible. Only after undergoing rigorous review and retesting are results generally accepted in the scientific community. Just like Every Other Human Endeavor, there is corruption in science. No doubt. The real question is what method is going to more quickly and clearly going to highlight that corruption?

For six (or whatever numbered thought this is), yes, pharmaceutical companies are greedy. They are mostly capitalistic corporations whose primary purpose is to make money for their shareholders. That doesn't mean they cannot do good however. Furthermore, if you don't trust greedy capitalistic pharmaceutical corporations (which I don't actually), you should really be a huge supporter of a strong and independent FDA which holds these companies accountable and make sure that they are forced to apply strong peer reviewed science to their claims. Unfortunately, given the scientific ignorance you have displayed here, I am fairly sure you support politicians who want to gut the FDA. I think you really need to rethink the target of your naive comments. Everyone knows pharmaceutical companies have huge incentives to fudge stuff. That is precisely why they need to be overseen by scientists.

It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by numerous peer reviewed studies that taking the COVID vaccine is orders of magnitude safer than not taking the COVID vaccine. It isn't even close. In any sane world this wouldn't be controversial.

Unfortunately not enough people understand science or the scientific method.

Since I am a betting man, I would bet a lot (a whole lot) of money that I just wasted my time and this post won't reach you. You will continue to live in ignorance of science and the scientific method. But this in one of the few bets I hope to lose. Maybe you will become a better, more educated person.

LOL it is hilarious that it is usually possible to tell a lot about a person by the sources of information they consume. I would think that people would want to use sources of information that actually informed them (especially on a site like this), but instead, most people seek out sources of information that reinforce their existing beliefs. That is backwards and always surprises me.

You should better sources of information if you want to be educated. Unless you are just looking for reinforcement. Then you are doing well.

That is demonstrably incorrect to anyone who has even the slightest inkling of how science works.

There was definitely a lower reward for younger population to take the vaccine. No doubt. However there was also much lower risk for younger populations to take the vaccine.

In every measured age population it was beneficial to take the vaccine. Hands down.