Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 903
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Covid hogging the headlines tonight.


Two things standing out from my observations.


One, increased testing. Two, increased use of the app keeps us all safe.


Big Mumma G is making its move with a bit of Jacindas fairy dust. Increased testing is of course going to yield more positives. Just like Trump says. But how do we know what the test tests to yield a positive?


Stronger push for uptake of the app. Message is stay safe, keep those around you safe, download the app. How on earth is an app going to deter a virus?


How about respect the concept of personal space, wash your hands and stay home when unwell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You know the drill. Your throat feels scratchy, you start sneezing and coughing, and pretty soon you're in the grip of a nasty cold. To add insult to injury, all that big-time misery is from a tiny invader -- a living thing called a virus.


And it's not just one you need to dodge. There are more than 200 that can lay you low.


It's likely that someday you'll have a close encounter with one of these types:



A common cold is caused by a corona virus. Symptoms of Covid 19 are the same as a common cold. So when you go and get tested for a corona virus called Covid 19 because you feel like you might have a cold which might be because of Covid 19, and that cold is because of a corona virus but not Covid 19, what do you think the test might show?

So suddenly in the middle of winter, testing gets ramped up and now we have all these positive carriers in the community.


Goodness me. What a surprise.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep ....




These days, when there are so many science deniers, it may feel like arguing with them is absolutely pointless. But a 2019 study published in the journal Nature Human Behavior showed that it's in fact worth arguing with them.


Philipp Schmid and Cornelia Betsch of the University of Erfurt in Germany conducted six experiments with 1,773 subjects. They assessed "how to mitigate the influence of a denier on the audience."


The results showed that "not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviors favored by science (for example, vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviors."




Link to comment
Share on other sites

love your persistence Kahuna 1. however am a fatalist as much as I love history I cannot convince my wife or family to accept my views...life goes on and we survive as we have over the last 10,000 yrs in western europe since the last ice age...global warming...global ice age.... the cycles keep coming...cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the "science deniers" moniker. Immediately gives credence to the "science acceptors", because "deniers" are bad , using the biblical story as evidence.


Apart from the name calling, we have a "science" community that used to be very well controlled with peer reviewed papers. But now, peer reviewed can mean almost anything, and obtaining research funds is the name of the game.


More than a few "peer reviewed" papers have been proven to be written using false data. So scientists have only themselves to blame for being subjected to scepticism, because they have been the architects of false evidence and papers.


I don't accept that deniers are unscientific, mostly they have a very healthy scepticism of "evidence". I've lost count of the "world ending catastrophes " that have been proposed by so-called "climate scientists" since the seventies. " World warming" was a classic, backed up by completely false evidence, and led to the clever shift to "climate change" which simply can't be denied.

Whether it's diabolically catastrophic for the planet is debatable, but the Earth has coped with some dramatic climate changes in the past.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh huh ....


Conflating and minimizing and maximizing things abounds.


That we have someone comparing USA 30,000 FLu deaths a year to 200,000 USA COVID19 deaths as the same when its a merely since APRIL 1st so ... that's 4 1/2 monhts is par for the course.


I would agree skepticism is needed with some sceintific papers. I do it myself. Peer review is often tearing rubbish papers to bits, that its a published paper means not a thing.


COVID19 whilst not being alarmist in the extreme is the worst virus in 100 years.


Either we deal with it, minimize its impacts, or we do not. Denial is not working for USA and if one merely goes there are 200 days till April 1 2021 ... at 1,000 a day which is LOW .... is 400,000 deaths the same as 30,000 ? Apparently it is !!


Each to their own. Tin foil hats often work !!


Makeup is better


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...