posted by queencitybuckeyeIt does not mean what you claimed it meant, that it is no more likely than unlikely. That was a lie, sir.
I didn’t say that unvaccinated or vaccinated were more likely, you did. Your bolded study didn’t help your statement at all.
I said that it’s inconclusive or equal amount of transmissibility among the delta variant.
So what will you say next that I didn’t actually claim?
posted by jmogKeep up the ad hominem, but at least get the attacks right..
Then maybe stop ignoring ESTABLISHED science that refutes your beliefs?
You're a fucking hack. You're QO with a Phd. It's obvious to everyone else with similar bonafides.
At least Queen is trying to stay on topic, even if he is trying to change what I claimed.
Gut is just going off the rails, a “your mom” joke or “I slept with your wife” joke will be next for him.
You claimed that the word potentially has a meaning in scientific journals that it's equally likely or unlikely. That is an incorrect interpretation.
Sorry....the correct term would be "quack"
posted by gutThen maybe stop ignoring ESTABLISHED science that refutes your beliefs?
You're a fucking hack. You're QO with a Phd. It's obvious to everyone else with similar bonafides.
Typically people result to these kinds of posts when they don’t know how to argue their point.
And I don’t have a PhD. Masters in Chemical Engjneering and 2 BS’s (ChemEng and Applied Math).
Once you get back to formulating a coherent response to the argument rather than attacking the person, come back to the topic at hand.
Post a study that contradicts mine, that the viral loads for delta variant is significantly higher in unvaccinated.
posted by jmogAt least Queen is trying to stay on topic, even if he is trying to change what I claimed.
Gut is just going off the rails, a “your mom” joke or “I slept with your wife” joke will be next for him.
No, I really didn't. I provided no proof to dispute your equally unproven quack claim. I simply corrected your misinformation.
Feel free to post your "science" backing your claims. You know Queen and I will embarass you.
posted by queencitybuckeyeYou claimed that the word potentially has a meaning in scientific journals that it's equally likely or unlikely. That is an incorrect interpretation.
No I did not. You again didn’t read what I said.
I said it EITHER means they didn’t test that at all or properly yet they BELIEVE it to be true so said it needs further study.
OR
It means they did a few tests and got similar/inconsistent results for both “sides” yet they believe one side over the other to be true and said it needs to be studied more.
I never said it means either side is just as likely.
Read again, without changing what I said to suit your argument.
posted by gutNo, I really didn't. I provided no proof to dispute your equally unproven quack claim. I simply corrected your misinformation.
Feel free to post your "science" backing your claims. You know Queen and I will embarass you.
Already posted an article that linked to a study.
Your turn to dispute it with another study.
Or you think I need to provide like 5 or 10 studies before you stop the ad hominem bullshit?
posted by jmogAlready posted an article that linked to a study it
Well that settles it then. One study is gospel. I'm sure I could shit all over it if it were actually worth my time.
I know you're full of shit. And so do you. The difference is, the former is an honest take and the latter is a psychopath.
posted by jmog
Or you think I need to provide like 5 or 10 studies
I'd like to see you try.
You seem like a smart guy. Yet spread ignorant bullshit on a small message board. Go Find Yourself.
posted by gutWell that settles it then. One study is gospel. I'm sure I could shit all over it if it were actually worth my time.
I know you're full of shit. And so do you. The difference is, the former is an honest take and the latter is a psychopath.
Ad hominem again, just proves you have lost the debate or just don’t have the ability to develop your own argument.
See, typically how a debate goes is one side gives an argument, backed up by evidence (like the link I provided), and the other then provides their own evidence to back their own argument and explains why their evidence supersedes their other sides evidence.
You appear to believe once someone disagrees with you, even if they provide evidence, that it’s kosher to just act like a complete dickhead to said person like you are in 4th grade (which is why I mentioned I thought your mama jokes were next, you were acting so juvenile).
Calm down, take a xanax, come back in the morning with a valid argument and evidence to back it up.
I promise I will actually read it even though you didn’t read the one I provided.
posted by gutI'd like to see you try.
You seem like a smart guy. Yet spread ignorant bullshit on a small message board. Go Find Yourself.
I see you still don’t understand how this works…
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
There’s 5 links, my original plus 4 more, that ALL say that the delta variant viral load is the same or similar in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
It’s literally the first 5 or so links based on the simple google search I showed earlier.
I quickly scanned them all and only the CDC link suggested that while the viral loads were similar that vaccinated MAY fight/knock down the viral load faster than unvaccinated making their transmissibility window shorter.
That’s a guess since they don’t know if the unvaccinated are people who had covid and therefore have same or more antibodies than vaccinated.
So, let’s hear your next ad hominem gut.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieAgreed. When it’s all said and done, his name will probably become a rallying cry. I bet his dad is disappointed - oh wait, never mind, he’s not involved.
No because his victim is also black. Also living in Dallas everyone who went to that school says it’s total BS. The kid comes from a rich family and acts like he’s a gangster. Wears all blue and a grill to school most of the time. His social media is filled with him shutting down streets downtown for street racing. All the kids at the school have said he was the bully and choose the wrong kid on the wrong day. Got his ass beat and embarrassed so he came back with a gun. His parents threw him a welcome home party supposedly.
posted by sportchamppsNo because his victim is also black. Also living in Dallas everyone who went to that school says it’s total BS. The kid comes from a rich family and acts like he’s a gangster. Wears all blue and a grill to school most of the time. His social media is filled with him shutting down streets downtown for street racing. All the kids at the school have said he was the bully and choose the wrong kid on the wrong day. Got his ass beat and embarrassed so he came back with a gun. His parents threw him a welcome home party supposedly.
We all know he will be portrayed as a victim in all this and racism will somehow be invoked. It’s 2021 after all.
Will BLM get involved?
posted by queencitybuckeyeI don't believe in government mandates. I do not fault companies that would go along instead of committing suicide fighting them.
For thousands of employers right now, committing suicide would be going along with a vax mandate. They are already short a bunch of laborers and are barely scraping by, and then the mandate will cause another 10 - 25% of their workers to walk out. If OSHA proceeds with the emergency standard mandating the vax, and if successful injunctions are not forthcoming, the labor crisis will become a national catastrophe (if it already hasn't). We're pissing trillions down a rat hole, and buying ourselves a socialist economy that won't work.
looks like the progs got to the Rolling Stones.
posted by jmogDid you miss any of the CNN talking points in this horseshit of a post?
Your
post immediately above this one said I was "flat wrong" about unvaccinated
not being a threat. I'd try to explain to you how unvaccinated people create threat/risk that aren't directly related to actually giving you Covid, but I have my doubts you're capable of comprehending the
logic.
And the above post is, I believe, an ad hominem
attack, unprovoked before I had even directed a post at you. Then you
start with your usual intellectual dishonest tricks of
strawman arguments and moving the goal posts, and whine like a bitch
when you get called on it.
Also, viral load =/= contagiousness/transmissibility. I suspect you know better, but I think we give you too much credit. You don't understand basic facts, and that's what makes you a hack not worth engaging.
posted by Fletchlooks like the progs got to the Rolling Stones.
Saw that. Very sad the Stones caved. Morons are incapable of understanding the nuance of Brown Sugar. Probably the same crowd that listens to rappers talk about murder, rape, n-word etc.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieSaw that. Very sad the Stones caved. Morons are incapable of understanding the nuance of Brown Sugar. Probably the same crowd that listens to rappers talk about murder, rape, n-word etc.
Keith Richards even said the song was about the horrors of slavery. These are the same dolts desecrating statues of people who were anti-slavery, thinking they were racist. Research, idiots.
