Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,288,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,725 of 1894
  1. #1651
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You might cut yourself. AIDS isn't just an STD.
    Unless they bleed or jizz into my cut, it's not really a problem. If buttsex is involved it's definitely a problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I've asked a girl if she's on the pill, but never if she has an STD. That's really going to kill the moment.
    If you did and she said "that's a private matter, and none of your business," would you still shag her?




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem with this is that you're basically assuming that unvaccinated = infected, while vaccinated = not infected. This is incredibly naive and only serves to support my claim that vaccinated people let their guard down.
    On the contrary, I'm not assuming anything about them, you are. Your n=1 sample (this time using yourself) that unvaxxed people are more careful is just conjecture. I've heard of plenty of people who both won't get vaxxed and won't follow basic safety protocols like wearing a mask.

    Caveat emptor, being vaxxed makes a person safer to be around than not being vaxxed. And since I don't have data on what % of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed people are likely to engage in risky behaviours, I'm going with the information I have available to me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  2. #1652
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I've asked a girl if she's on the pill,
    So you've got no problem with invading someone else's medical privacy when it might affect you, but you don't want anyone to invade your medical privacy when it affects them.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  3. #1653
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    A vaccinated person with their guard down is less risk to society than an unvaccinated person with their guard up.
    This opinion seems insane to me. Vaccinated people who assume they are incapable of spreading or catching the virus are much more dangerous than unvaccinated people who know they are potential carriers. Vaxed people are less likely to do tests if they get what they think is merely a cold. I'm testing even though I feel absolutely fine, because I know the risk I currently pose is far greater than a week ago. If I were vaccinated, would I still be isolating and testing? I think the probability goes down.

    The odds that spit from your lungs makes it into someone else's lungs is almost guaranteed.
    Right, so I'm putting myself at risk by breathing in these particles of virus. I'm not putting others at risk unless I continue to mingle with folk when I am contagious.

    That's why an unvaccinated person shouldn't be allowed in indoor spaces during a respiratory pandemic.
    You too are making the naive assumption that unvaccinated = infectious, while vaccinated = not infectious. This is what I think is more dangerous than not being vaccinated.

    Having a fever is not something you want.
    I'm not so sure about this, at least for an otherwise healthy person. I want my immune system to fight the virus with everything it has. That's what fever is.

    Having a fever means your body cannot fight the infection with anti-bodies
    Ok this is contrary to my uneducated understanding of this, as I understand it fever increases the body temperature to allow the antibodies to fight the infection better. I could definitely be mistaken here though.

    I agree, that if the pandemic ends and the vaccine requirement stays, that'd be wrong.
    This is good, because I don't really have a problem with restrictions while the pandemic is ongoing. I'm not worried about not being able to attend a festival during a pandemic, but I am worried about not being able to go when there is no threat.

    What greater "safety" trial can you cite from the history of vaccination?
    How many years do other vaccines get trialed for? More than two. We have no idea if there are long term effects. We can quite comfortably say "probably not", but not "definitely not".

    Your failure to look at what scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the effectiveness of the vaccine is on you.
    How much political pressure are these people under? If a scientist makes a claim that the vaccine is potentially dangerous, they are roundly discredited and/or struck off.

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates...cines-skeptic/

    To be clear, I don't necessarily believe what this guy claims. But the response was to call him "dangerous and irresponsible", rather than to look into his claims. That doesn't fill me with confidence. And this is just the first guy I found from a google search.

    I have explained how being in a crowded indoor space is putting everyone there at risk.
    I understand that, but to put others at risk, you have to actually be infectious. Being unvaccinated does not make you infectious. I've explained that as an unvaccinated person, I am extremely cautious. If I were to go to a nightclub, I would absolutely test myself before doing so. Assuming a negative test, how am I putting other people at any more risk than a vaccinated person?

    Right now, people are still dying to COVID.
    And this implies the vaccine is ineffective when it comes to ending the pandemic.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #1654
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If buttsex is involved it's definitely a problem.
    Let's not rule anything out.

    You bleeding into my tablecloth could be a problem if I too have a cut. Is it not reasonable for me to be paranoid about that? I'd say no, it's not reasonable, but I also don't think it's reasonable to assume unvaccinated people are automatically infectious.

    If you did and she said "that's a private matter, and none of your business," would you still shag her?
    Assuming she's still up for it and not offended by me asking, sure, I'd just use a condom. The point is though, asking if a lady has an STD before engaging in sex is basically the same as asking if she's a slag and completely lacking in social grace to the point she could know she has an STD yet still engage in unprotected sex with a stranger. Asking if she's on the pill is just another way of saying "should I use a condom?".

    On the contrary, I'm not assuming anything about them
    Yes you are. You told me you don't want to breathe in my germs, while presumably being happy to breathe in the germs of vaxxed people. What makes you think I have germs? Purely that I am unvaxxed.

    I've heard of plenty of people who both won't get vaxxed and won't follow basic safety protocols like wearing a mask.
    Masks are also counterproductive. They protection they offer other people is pretty small, and only exists in the first place if the wearer is infectious, in which case they should be isolating.

    I wear a mask where required, but I think they are pretty much pointless.

    So you've got no problem with invading someone else's medical privacy when it might affect you, but you don't want anyone to invade your medical privacy when it affects them.
    That's an interesting way to spin it when we're talking about contraception, not health.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #1655
    Masks are counterproductive because they lull people into a false sense of security. Someone who is infectious might feel they can mix with other people because they can wear a mask, when the mask offers little protection to other people because virus particles can still escape.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #1656
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's an interesting way to spin it when we're talking about contraception, not health.
    If it's just about contraception why does she need a prescription from a doctor to get the pill?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  7. #1657
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes you are. You told me you don't want to breathe in my germs, while presumably being happy to breathe in the germs of vaxxed people. What makes you think I have germs? Purely that I am unvaxxed.
    no I'm not. You've conveniently assumed I meant "covid germs" when I said "germs." Everyone has germs, and if I have to breathe in someone's germs, I prefer them to have been vaxxed against covid. And measles, mumps, and rubella for that matter.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  8. #1658
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Masks are counterproductive because they lull people into a false sense of security. Someone who is infectious might feel they can mix with other people because they can wear a mask, when the mask offers little protection to other people because virus particles can still escape.
    Just because you can come up with a scenario where wearing a mask is bad, does not mean wearing a mask is always bad.

    You might as well say "having a speed limit is counterproductive because someone might think they don't have to watch the road if they're driving the speed limit."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  9. #1659
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If it's just about contraception why does she need a prescription from a doctor to get the pill?
    Probably because the pill can cause medical complications in some people, so best for the doctor to prescribe it. idk though I'm guessing. Regardless, asking a woman if she's on the pill before having sex is somewhat more responsible than just nailing her and hoping for the best. I appreciate you're trying to create contradictions, but it isn't working because the pill is not a health thing. If she says "no I'm not" and I ask her why not, now we're getting into potential health privacy.

    no I'm not. You've conveniently assumed I meant "covid germs" when I said "germs." Everyone has germs, and if I have to breathe in someone's germs, I prefer them to have been vaxxed against covid. And measles, mumps, and rubella for that matter.
    Ok. So let's assume you ask me round for dinner, provided I am vaccinated. I then say "soz buddy I'm not, but I am perfectly happy to do a test before leaving the house". Is that acceptable? Or are you still concerned about my germs?

    Just because you can come up with a scenario where wearing a mask is bad, does not mean wearing a mask is always bad.
    You know how stupid people are en masse. Masked people are less likely to adhere to social distancing. They feel "safer". That feeling of safety is problematic.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #1660
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Probably because the pill can cause medical complications in some people, so best for the doctor to prescribe it. idk though I'm guessing. Regardless, asking a woman if she's on the pill before having sex is somewhat more responsible than just nailing her and hoping for the best. I appreciate you're trying to create contradictions, but it isn't working because the pill is not a health thing. If she says "no I'm not" and I ask her why not, now we're getting into potential health privacy.
    Meh, think anything someone puts in their body prescribed by a doctor counts as a medicine.,



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok. So let's assume you ask me round for dinner, provided I am vaccinated. I then say "soz buddy I'm not, but I am perfectly happy to do a test before leaving the house". Is that acceptable? Or are you still concerned about my germs?
    Not acceptable, no. What good does it do me to find out you have covid after you've been in my house all night?






    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You know how stupid people are en masse. Masked people are less likely to adhere to social distancing. They feel "safer". That feeling of safety is problematic.
    You're making broad assumptions here about things with no evidence. I'm not saying people wearing masks do or don't act more safe than people without masks, just that arguments can be made either way.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  11. #1661
    You're really not making a good case for medical privacy here. I think you're better off sticking to the main libertarian argument that it's your body and you shouldn't be penalised for making a non-conforming decision about it. The counter to that obviously is that some of your medical choices affect other people, so that argument is about as good as saying you should be allowed to smoke on the train.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  12. #1662
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Not to derail into the sex thing, but you should definitely be asking any new sexual partners if they've been tested for STD's and how long ago and what were the results. If you can't talk openly and honestly about this, then you don't trust them, no matter how horny you are. Wearing a condom protects against more than STD's. Condoms protect against parenthood, a far more insidious and incurable condition.

    ***
    Ong, your arguments about COVID are hysterical. It's not due diligence to site a single discredited scientist's opinion and claim, "Look it's not unanimous, there are experts who disagree". Look at the credibility of the claim and the explanations of counter claim. Obv. don't trust someone saying "You're dangerous and wrong." based solely on that. Look into their explanations of what is dangerous and why it is wrong.

    Are you seeking evidence and logic? Or are you jumping at shadows and latching onto whatever selfish argument excuses you from doing something you would rather not do?


    If you want actual data, I'll post it, but if past is prologue, you wont read more than a paragraph in a multipage essay in science lingo. You'll just tune out and ask me for a summary. So I'm posting summaries. If that's not convincing, then great. It shouldn't be. I'm an internet rando to you. Of course I have a bit more credibility, but we all know I'm not an epidemiologist, and not speaking from my personal expertise on this subject.

    Your assertion that literally no scientists or experts can be trusted because any one or all of them could be under the thumb or politics or big pharma is hysterical. They literally swore to "do no harm" and dedicate their lives to saving people. Sure, some of them will be either corrupt or bad at their job, or have some ulterior agenda. But when there is international consensus from doctors everywhere, and only very few medically trained people nay-saying it, then let that speak for itself. The notion that doctors all over the world are somehow under the same thumb is beyond reasonable.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  13. #1663
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Not acceptable, no. What good does it do me to find out you have covid after you've been in my house all night?
    Are you really that incapable of figuring out context? I meant before I left my house. If the question seems silly to you, read it back and ask yourself if perhaps you're interpreting it wrong.

    You're really not making a good case for medical privacy here.
    If your response is to argue that asking a woman if she's on the pill before sex is an invasion of medical privacy, I'd say it's you making a poor case.

    I think you're better off sticking to the main libertarian argument that it's your body and you shouldn't be penalised for making a non-conforming decision about it.
    This is indeed a relevant point, but privacy is very much important. If you're about to engage in sex with someone, you're already in a position where privacy is being compromised. Ensuring that an unwanted pregnancy does not occur is responsible behaviour, as you well know.

    The counter to that obviously is that some of your medical choices affect other people
    Lots of private medical matters potentially affect other people. Ok the AIDS one is a little tenuous, but flu is potentially dangerous, is it ok for me to ask if you've had the flu jab? Maybe that doesn't bother you, but what if I demand proof before allowing you into my shop? You might just go "fuck you I'll take my business elsewhere" but naturally that response is because it offends you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #1664
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Not to derail into the sex thing, but you should definitely be asking any new sexual partners if they've been tested for STD's and how long ago and what were the results.
    idk about this. If I'm about to start a relationship with someone, I'm putting my trust in that person. If I'm not willing to do that, then is this the right women for me? I expect anyone who knows they have an STD to be honest about at the first opportunity, ie when it's obvious that the relationship is moving from dating to fucking. If they can't be certain they do not have an STD, I am still trusting them to privately go about checking and let me know if there's a problem. It just seems like a really bad start to the relationship if you're asking about STDs.

    If we're talking about a casual thing with someone you barely know and don't have reason to put your trust in, well use a condom. That's responsible because if you're the kind of guy who likes casual sex, then maybe you're unknowingly carrying an STD.

    Ong, your arguments about COVID are hysterical.
    Ironic. I think it's you two that are hysterical. I still get the distinct impression that you both feel unvaxxed people are infectious.

    It's not due diligence to site a single discredited scientist's opinion
    He's not the only one. I'm just lazy. This particular guy was the head of Pfizer, not some absolute random. His words carry more weight due to his position, on this your surely agree.

    Are you seeking evidence and logic?
    Logic, certainly. If I test myself and am negative, how can I possibly be putting other people at risk, any more than a vaccinated person?

    If you want actual data, I'll post it
    I don't want to waste your time any more than just having a casual discussion.

    Your assertion that literally no scientists or experts can be trusted because any one or all of them could be under the thumb or politics or big pharma is hysterical.
    Perhaps. I can at least appreciate why you think so. However, when you have zero trust in two out of three, and have some trust in the other, it's not easy to take a confident position.

    They literally swore to "do no harm"
    Yeah like cops.

    My issue with science isn't the integrity of the scientists themselves. It's more the reliability of the data, which I'm in no doubt the scientists interpret in good faith. But who controls the data?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #1665
    You can ask me if I've had a flu jab, the measles jab, the mumps jab, the rubella jab, smallpox jab, tetanus jab, the covid jab, and any other jabs you want, and my answer will be 'no', 'yes', 'no, i'm too old', 'yes', 'yes, a long time ago', 'yes, both' and whatever else, and if you then say i can't come into your shop cause I don't have the one you're worried about, I'll say 'fair enough.'

    What I won't do is refuse to answer the questions because you're invading my medical privacy - that's just lol. It's not even a personal question to ask, except inasmuch as refusing to take the covid jab shows you up as a nutter. I guess you're risking embarrassment, so maybe that should be your angle.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  16. #1666
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But who controls the data?
    I'm pretty sure the scientists themselves control the data. Not because I've watched them do it, but because it's their name going on the work and letting someone you don't know and trust have access to your data is taking a big risk.

    There's a lot of incentive to get a vaccine right. There's a lot of disincentive to do shoddy work, make a few bucks, kill a bunch of people, and ruin your career. Most scientists are in it because it's intellectually stimulating, not for the money. We like our jobs and want to keep doing them. If we just cared abouot money, we'd take our brains into another field, not one that pays just a tiny bit more than a lorry driver.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  17. #1667
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    What I won't do is refuse to answer the questions because you're invading my medical privacy
    The funny thing is, I don't really give too much of a fuck about my medical privacy. But I respect anyone who does. That's the difference here. You saying it's "just lol", which is mocking those who do wish to keep their medical status private.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #1668
    I mean obviously I'm biased, but when 99% of reputable scientists tell me to do something, I tend to do it. What I don't do is listen instead to what some non-scientist conspiracy theorists say because what the fuck do they know about science? I might as well ask my car mechanic to make my medical decisions for me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  19. #1669
    I'm pretty sure the scientists themselves control the data.
    Yeah like climate data.

    We all know I'm more skeptical then you guys. That doesn't mean I think the data is bullshit. It means I don't blindly accept it as fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #1670
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The funny thing is, I don't really give too much of a fuck about my medical privacy. But I respect anyone who does. That's the difference here. You saying it's "just lol", which is mocking those who do wish to keep their medical status private.
    They can keep it private. They just can't go places where their misguided sense of privacy puts others in danger.

    But let's face it, no-one who's had the vaccine makes this so-called argument. That alone tells me it's contrived and just a bullshit excuse people are using to not get vaxxed.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  21. #1671
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah like climate data.

    We all know I'm more skeptical then you guys. That doesn't mean I think the data is bullshit. It means I don't blindly accept it as fact.
    There's a lot of variables involved in climate data that makes it difficult to prove anything conclusively. Not the case with vaccine data; you've either had it or you haven't and following that you've either caught covid or not, been hospitalised with covid or not, or died from covid or not. And the evidence shows conclusively that the likelihood of all three bad outcomes goes down dramatically after being vaxxed.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  22. #1672
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I've certainly never said that being unvaccinated is equivalent to being infectious. I don't recall poopy saying that either, but he can talk for himself. I hear he turned into a big kid some time ago.

    If we were talking about an illness that like turned your nose bright pink during the entire time you were infectious, and then it went back to normal when you were not longer infectious, then my opinions on mandatory vaccines would be dramatically different.

    The reality is that the range of COVID symptoms varies wildly, with a significant %age of people reporting no symptoms at all and yet testing positive for COVID antibodies in their system. So they had no freaking idea when they were infected or infectious, and no one else around them knew either. That really complicates things. There's no clear sign.


    Also, we're talking about a new disease that went from newly discovered to worldwide pandemic in a matter of months. So many millions of people have died to COVID in the past 2 years. It's not like a cold or getting a little pukey flu for a day that you fully expect to fully recover from. It kills.

    Reputable medical doctors never claimed that taking the vaccine would mean that you definitely would not get or transmit Sars-CoV-2 virus. They only claimed that getting the vaccine would dramatically reduce those chances. Then when cases started coming in of vaccinated patients with COVID, they studied the severity of symptoms and showed that vaccinated patients suffer fewer and lesser symptoms for a shorter period than non-vaccinated patients. That was never a guarantee, but it is great news.


    We don't know the long-term effects of the vaccines. That's fair.
    We also don't know the long-term effects of COVID infection, but we have evidence that it can be severely bad for some people already.


    Working without complete knowledge is our only option. You're a poker player. You glean all the information you can around the unknown, and you make your best guess and do something about it. EZ.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  23. #1673
    mojo, just one question, which I've indirectly asked twice and you've ignored...

    Is regular testing an acceptable alternative to vaccination?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #1674
    Are you willing to pay for the tests yourself, and do you have a valid medical reason why you can't get the vax? If yes to both, then sure.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  25. #1675
    Vaccinated people should still be testing regularly. Once again you demonstrate the danger of vaccine complacency. You've had the vaccine? No worries, life as normal.

    Actually no. You've had the vaccine? You should still be testing regularly. Vaccinated people can still spread the virus, so it's irresponsible not to. So what difference does it make if I'm paying for the test? Are you paying for yours? Are you even testing regularly?

    The latter part, "do you have a valid medical reason", should not even enter your thoughts. That it does shows a tyrannical attitude. Vax or fuck off. No exceptions (except medical). It shows this is not about public health to you, but compliance. If I test and show negative, then there is no public health issue. So it shouldn't matter to you if I have what you consider a valid reason to not vaccinate or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #1676
    My friend who has covid, he's vaccinated, but was still testing every 48 hours. He's a taxi driver coming into regular contact with people, so it was important for him to do so.

    If you're vaxed and intend to go to a nightclub, test yourself before going, otherwise you're more dangerous than I am, who is unvaxed and testing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #1677
    I just tested myself, still negative.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #1678
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Vaccinated people should still be testing regularly.
    I am.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Once again you demonstrate the danger of vaccine complacency.
    Quite the opposite, as my regular testing proves.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You've had the vaccine? No worries, life as normal.
    Sure, if it's normal to test myself twice a week and wear a mask inside. But I don't remember doing that before the pandemic, so no, not life as normal.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The latter part, "do you have a valid medical reason", should not even enter your thoughts. That it does shows a tyrannical attitude. Vax or fuck off. No exceptions (except medical). It shows this is not about public health to you, but compliance. If I test and show negative, then there is no public health issue. So it shouldn't matter to you if I have what you consider a valid reason to not vaccinate or not.
    It matters if my taxes are paying for your tests when you could have gotten vaxxed instead, which even if you pick up the virus and the test misses it means you're less dangerous to me, but didn't get vaxxed for some invalid reason.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  29. #1679
    Quite the opposite, as my regular testing proves.
    It was because you basically insist I pay for my testing. Here's the complacency...

    It matters if my taxes are paying for your tests when you could have gotten vaxxed instead
    What it should say is this...

    It matters if my taxes are paying for your tests when you could have gotten vaxxed as well
    See the difference? Even if I'm vaxed, your tax still pays for my tests, because I still need to test.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #1680
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If you're vaxed and intend to go to a nightclub, test yourself before going, otherwise you're more dangerous than I am, who is unvaxed and testing.
    Source?


    Also, if I'm vaxxed and testing regularly, I'm less dangerous than you.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  31. #1681
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Even if I'm vaxed, your tax still pays for my tests, because I still need to test.
    I guess my attitude is that you should pay for being a twat. It's the same way I'm happy people who speed get a fine for doing so. You're getting fined for risking others' health.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  32. #1682
    We're equally as not dangerous if we both test negative. If you want to argue differently, then you can't have any faith in the tests.

    My source? Really dude. You're suggesting that it's less dangerous for a vaxed person who hasn't tested to mingle with crowds than an unvaxed person who has tested.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #1683
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I guess my attitude is that you should pay for being a twat. It's the same way I'm happy people who speed get a fine for doing so. You're getting fined for risking others' health.
    Like I say, tyrannical. I don't think I'm being a twat if I test myself before going out. You might think so, but that is a stupid opinion to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #1684
    Getting tested regularly but not getting vaxxed is like driving the speed limit in a car with no MOT (car safety test for you Yanks). Fuck you, pay the fine.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  35. #1685
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like I say, tyrannical. I don't think I'm being a twat if I test myself before going out. You might think so, but that is a stupid opinion to me.
    If the tests were 100% reliable, you'd have an argument here. But they aren't. So you can test - and still be +. And if that happens and you aren't vaxxed, all the evidence says the chance you'll pass it on to someone else is greater than a person in the same circumstances who is vaxxed.

    It's an unecessary risk you're exposing others to with no valid reason.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  36. #1686
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Getting tested regularly but not getting vaxxed is like driving the speed limit in a car with no MOT (car safety test for you Yanks). Fuck you, pay the fine.
    Ridiculous analogy. You're scraping the barrel here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #1687
    If the tests were 100% reliable, you'd have an argument here.
    They're pretty damn reliable. 99.9% according to the gov.uk website. Is that not good enough for you? Coupled with the lack of symptoms, which makes me 66% likely to not be infected (same website), that improves the probability substantially.

    It's an unecessary risk you're exposing others to with no valid reason.
    Whop are you to determine if my reason for not vaccinating is valid? Even mojo acknowledges we don't know the long term effects of vaccination.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #1688
    which makes me 66% likely to not be infected
    Poorly worded.

    1 in 3 positive cases show no symptoms, which is where I pulled 66% from.

    Basically, no symptoms + negative test is almost definitely no covid.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #1689
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    They're pretty damn reliable. 99.9% according to the gov.uk website.
    Now he trusts the gov't lol.

    I'm afraid it's much more complicated than that. There's different tests with different accuracy, and claiming a test is 99.9% accurate can mean a lot of things.

    It can mean if you have no symptoms and no covid it will say - 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have symptoms and covid it will say + 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have no symptoms but still have covid it will say + 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have symptoms but don't have covid it will say - 99.9% of the time.

    If you are infected, the accuracy of the test will also vary depending on how long ago you were infected, even if you have no symptoms.

    There's also the baseline infection rate to consider. If a test is given to 1000 people, none of which have either symptoms or covid, and 1/1000 of the results is +, it truly is 99.9% accurate in that respect. That's still only one of the four scenarios. But if the same test is given to 1000 people, 10 of which have covid, but none of which have symptoms, and it only tests + for one of them, it's really only 10% accurate.


    If it accounts for baseline infection rates, and does all four of the above scenarios equally accurately, that is really 99.9% accuracy, if it only does one but not the other three, it's not. If it doesn't account for baseline infection rates, it's also not. The rapid tests the gov't are giving away are claimed to be 99.9% accurate at reporting - when you have no symptoms. That's only one of the four possibilites. So I suspect they are being a bit optimistic about all of the other scenarios there as a way to encourage people to test.

    According to this article, the false negative rate is >50% for most rapid tests.

    https://www.healthline.com/health/ho...accurate-is-it

    That means if you come to my house after testing negative, but you have covid, about half the time you will be able to show me a negative test at the same time as you're spreading your little covids all over my house.


    Testing is not a substitute for vaccination in terms of protecting oneself and others. It's not even close.







    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Whop are you to determine if my reason for not vaccinating is valid? Even mojo acknowledges we don't know the long term effects of vaccination.
    There's no reason to think there will be any long-term effects, and the short-term effect of keeping you and others from getting sick or dying would outweigh them even if there were. It's dead virus cells and some harmless other things like buffering agents they're injecting into you. Dead viruses don't mutliply - so no-one ever died from a dead virus. Some people might be allergic to the buffering agents, but you tend to find that out pretty quick, not years later.

    If people were dropping from MMR or polio or smallpox or tetanus vaxxes down the line you might have a point. They aren't. These people who make vaccines know what the fuck they're doing, they're not going around playing Dr. Mengele with you.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  40. #1690
    The current prevalence of covid in the UK right now is about 2% of the population. That's probably an underestimate and to make the math easier, let's say it's really 3%. A third of cases are asymptomatic, so 1% have covid with no symptoms and 2% have covid with symptoms.

    Let's also assume some people without covid have a cold or flu or whatever and thus have symptoms. Let's say that's another 7%. So there's 7/100 people with no covid but symptoms. That leaves 90/100 with no covid and no symtpoms.

    Add in some estimates of testing accuracy and it's like this, for a group of 1000 people:

    Covid Symptoms n p(- test)
    Yes Yes 20 .5
    Yes No 10 .5
    No Yes 70 .999
    No No 900 .999


    What is the chance of me meeting someone who tests negative but has covid out of these 1000 people? Out of all of them, 910 have no symptoms and are free to walk around, but 10/910 with no symptoms have covid, and 5/910 both have covid and tested negative and are basically Typhoid Mary. So it's better than a 1/200 chance someone will come along who has tested negative and is breathing covid in my face. That's a small number, but what if I'm working in a restaurant with 300 people coming through it every day, or (more likely in my case) teaching in a lecture hall with 50 people in it. In every fourth lecture I'm sharing a room with someone who's asymptomatic and tested negative.

    That's why they're telling people to get vaccinated. Because sooner or later we're all going to get exposed to someone with covid, and the lower their viral load the less likely the next person is to catch it. And the vaccine is the best way to help that along.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  41. #1691
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    mojo, just one question, which I've indirectly asked twice and you've ignored...
    Sorry, man. Been a lot of words, and I've tried to respond to themes more than individual quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Is regular testing an acceptable alternative to vaccination?
    I don't think so. The issue is that testing is a snapshot of the past. Vaccination is preventative.

    It doesn't have to be a perfect preventative. Something is better than nothing.
    And it's the best we've got right now. (and it's pretty good)



    I'll do what I can to save lives whether or not it's fair to make me do it.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  42. #1692
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Did you seriously cite a gov't source, ong?

    What the heck. Troll harder next time, geez.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  43. #1693
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Poopy getting all Bayesian up in here.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  44. #1694
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO



    OK, then.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  45. #1695
    That's my next vacation planned.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  46. #1696
    Guess I'll be taking the train.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  47. #1697
    Plan F.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  48. #1698
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not disputing this, but neither am I blindly accepting it as fact.

    Mutations should be a good thing, best I understand it. A virus is evolving because to be successful, it wants to be more contagious and less damaging to its host. The perfect virus is very easily transmitted between people, without being noticed at all.

    I'm not a virologist though, and presumably neither is anyone else here.
    I am not a virologist but I think this is akin to the entropy argument theist will make. As I understand it, on the whole, the trend is towards more contagious/less damage, but that doesn't guarantee the characteristics of any given dominant mutation. For example, a mutation which is more deadly but also has a longer span in which the infected is contagious but asymptomatic increases the lag between mutation and further environmental pressure. To the extreme, such a mutation could see society collapse before environmental pressures tell it to chill tf out.
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  49. #1699
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Didn't the first SARS virus mutate to affect a different (non-human) animal?

    Wasn't the first SARS a joke in the West because it mutated to the point where it didn't affect humans before it spread beyond Asia?
    Or am I remembering that wrong?


    Point is that mutations are random, and aren't so much driven by environmental pressures as they are always present and when an environmental pressure makes a mutation beneficial, the mutated cells have a better chance to reproduce and yada yada.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  50. #1700
    Just been into London for the first time in 19 months. If I don't have covid now after packed trains and a few drinks with colleagues, I'm probably never getting it.
  51. #1701
    The first Spanish 'flu was just a "nasty bug" until the 2nd came along and smoked everyone.

    Letting a virus mutate is just rolling dice. Afaik, all the later covid mutations have all been more infectious than the original.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  52. #1702
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Now he trusts the gov't lol.

    I'm afraid it's much more complicated than that. There's different tests with different accuracy, and claiming a test is 99.9% accurate can mean a lot of things.

    It can mean if you have no symptoms and no covid it will say - 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have symptoms and covid it will say + 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have no symptoms but still have covid it will say + 99.9% of the time.

    It can mean if you have symptoms but don't have covid it will say - 99.9% of the time.
    Cool.

    Still not getting vaccinated. If that makes me socially excluded beyond the pandemic, then enjoy your tax money paying for even more welfare, because there will be much higher unemployment.

    As for during the pandemic, like I said previously, I don't resent restrictions. But assuming the vaccine does what it's supposed to do, there comes a point where it's redundant.

    We seem to have ordered something like 450 million doses of various vaccines. Doesn't that seem insanely high for a population of 67 million? That's an average of 7 vaccines each, including every child of all ages.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #1703
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Did you seriously cite a gov't source, ong?

    What the heck. Troll harder next time, geez.
    You know I'm lazy. It was the top search. And any other source I find will be equally as tenuous.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #1704
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post



    OK, then.
    lol some great places here

    This is in my Mom's town...



    And this is not far from my old town...

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #1705
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I am not a virologist but I think this is akin to the entropy argument theist will make. As I understand it, on the whole, the trend is towards more contagious/less damage, but that doesn't guarantee the characteristics of any given dominant mutation. For example, a mutation which is more deadly but also has a longer span in which the infected is contagious but asymptomatic increases the lag between mutation and further environmental pressure. To the extreme, such a mutation could see society collapse before environmental pressures tell it to chill tf out.
    I'm probably wrong. I don't take an interest in evolution quite like I do with physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #1706
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Point is that mutations are random, and aren't so much driven by environmental pressures as they are always present and when an environmental pressure makes a mutation beneficial, the mutated cells have a better chance to reproduce and yada yada.
    This is my understanding yeah, the mutations are random, but only the ones beneficial to the virus become common. Nothing says that the next variants will be less deadly, just that being less deadly would be a good idea for the virus. Just looking at the successful variants is survivor bias, and there's nothing's stopping an idiot mass death variant that's extinct in a year or two coming up.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  57. #1707
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-58767230

    Around 20 cars follow a tanker full of mortar to a building sit thinking it's transporting petrol. Imagine wasting that fuel in a panic to buy fuel.

    It's hard to sympathise with these plebs. If you think literally every tanker on the road is a fuel tanker, you're pretty stupid.

    One theory doing the rounds is that this fuel crisis was manufactured because less fuel was used during the pandemic lockdown and fuel companies have large stockpiles of fuel that are close to spoiling. Of course there's no way to prove or disprove this idea, but it's viable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #1708
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #1709
    Everything's going great.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  60. #1710
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    One theory doing the rounds is that this fuel crisis was manufactured because less fuel was used during the pandemic lockdown and fuel companies have large stockpiles of fuel that are close to spoiling. Of course there's no way to prove or disprove this idea, but it's viable.
    The only problem with their evil plan is they don't have enough drivers to transport the fuel to the petrol stations.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  61. #1711
    Queen too busy to drive a lorry? Looks like we're on to Plan G, call in the fire department!

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...paign=sharebar
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  62. #1712
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Fuel... spoiling? What? We're talking about gasoline.. that's petrol to you... right?
    As in a combination of long chain hydrocarbons?
    As in more complicated alcohol variants than the stuff you can drink?

    WTF is it spoiling into? It was stable in the ground for millions of years before we dug it up, but a few months in a tank is just too much? Like it's canned fruit or something?

    What?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  63. #1713
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Nothing says that the next variants will be less deadly, just that being less deadly would be a good idea for the virus.
    This is true, but with the caveat that if it manages to spread before it kills the host, it's done its job.

    I think transmissiblity is the main driver here. I mean obviously if you catch a virus and die in an hour it's not going to spread very well, so it can't be THAT deadly. But if you're coughing and spluttering for a while before you die, that's plenty of time for it to spread.

    Spanish 'flu Mach 2 killed a relatively high proportion of people, and relatively quickly (within a couple of days iirc). So being deadly or not isn't the main driver of a virus' ability to multiply through a population.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  64. #1714
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Fuel... spoiling? What? We're talking about gasoline.. that's petrol to you... right?
    As in a combination of long chain hydrocarbons?
    As in more complicated alcohol variants than the stuff you can drink?

    WTF is it spoiling into? It was stable in the ground for millions of years before we dug it up, but a few months in a tank is just too much? Like it's canned fruit or something?

    What?
    That was my first reaction too, but apparently the stuff they mix it with must make it less stable somehow.

    https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/co...gehandling.pdf
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  65. #1715
    We don't dig petrol out of the ground, we dig oil out of the ground and refine it into petrol. There are stabilisers available which can be added to petrol to increase its shelf life, but you'll only add that if you intend to store it yourself. It's not mixed into the petrol at the pumps.

    Diesel lasts longer, but from what I can tell, still only 12 months or so. Petrol keeps for 6 months. If you've got fuel sitting in an idle car for longer than that, it can cause problems. If it's half a tank or less, you can likely just top it up with fresh fuel and all will be well.

    Point is though, petrol needs to be sold within a few months of it being refined.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #1716
    Plan H: See if the Germans will do it (but don't mention the war!)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1930558.html
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  67. #1717
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Hm. Noted.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  68. #1718
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We don't dig petrol out of the ground, we dig oil out of the ground and refine it into petrol. There are stabilisers available which can be added to petrol to increase its shelf life, but you'll only add that if you intend to store it yourself. It's not mixed into the petrol at the pumps.

    Diesel lasts longer, but from what I can tell, still only 12 months or so. Petrol keeps for 6 months. If you've got fuel sitting in an idle car for longer than that, it can cause problems. If it's half a tank or less, you can likely just top it up with fresh fuel and all will be well.

    Point is though, petrol needs to be sold within a few months of it being refined.
    petrol/diesel become thicker over time and clogs up fuels filters /injectors etc

    https://www.briantsltd.co.uk/why-does-petrol-go-stale/
  69. #1719
    Due to hobbies, I've known about fuel going bad for a long time-- like a lot of long time knowledge, I,ve now just assumed everyone knew this.

    As for fuel being stable because it was "stable in the ground", well, gasoline has not been stable in the ground, gasoline is one part of what's refined from crude oil.

    Anyways, it's gotten worse since ethanol, which is hygroscopic*, started to be blended into our gas.

    *Yes, I had to look up the smart way to say "attracts water"
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  70. #1720
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The individual molecules that make up gasoline don't break down, as I understand it, but they separate like oil and water, albeit much more slowly. I kinda think I knew this once upon a time, but I have forgotten at some point.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  71. #1721
    There's also the fact that the shorter-chain hydrocarbons are more volatile and evaporate more quickly. And since they're the ones most important for ignition, losing them out of the mixture makes it harder for the gasoline to ignite. Or something like that.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  72. #1722
    It appears we won't have enough turkeys for xmas, to add to the pile of shit. The irony is we'll be importing what ones we get from the EU.

    Personally I'm not buying any goddamn Eurolibturkey! Here's my Brexit Christmas meal I'm planning.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  73. #1723
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  74. #1724
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's also the fact that the shorter-chain hydrocarbons are more volatile and evaporate more quickly. And since they're the ones most important for ignition, losing them out of the mixture makes it harder for the gasoline to ignite. Or something like that.
    This also makes sense.

    That time when poopy was more knowledgeable about a science thing than Monkey was.
    The end is nigh.

    lol

    ***
    The Reuters article was like, You separated your electric grid on paper, but it's still connected irl, and there's still exchange along those cables, and there's no consistent pricing on said interchange because we split the systems on paper without describing how this problem is solved. So we're working on a pricing system that is clear.

    Or am I missing something there, as well?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  75. #1725
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    We just recently got an underwater cable with Norway up and running, allowing us to buy hydroelectric power off them, and sell wind power to them. These kind of deals are very good for both parties, especially when we're talking about green energy. Norway have similar deals with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. Norway are perfectly capable of enjoying a strong economic relationship with the EU. They're one of the richest countries in the world, so not being in the EU doesn't seem to be hurting them.

    I've got no problem having an economic relationship with the EU. So, buying and/or selling electricity is not a problem, on the contrary it's something I would encourage. I think this is something most people in the UK, and probably the EU, agree on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •