The Covid cure has arrived!

[AccessBlaster]

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't have been alarmed about in-person voting either... or voter ID.

 

[ColinEssex]

I never did understand why Americans hated Obama so much, he seems a decent sort of chap, certainly a ton better than the Orange clown.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

I never did understand why Americans hated Obama so much, he seems a decent sort of chap, certainly a ton better than the Orange clown.
Col

Yeah that might have been a little harsh even for this forum

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[moke123]

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't have been alarmed about in-person voting either... or voter ID.

View attachment 87321

The author seems like a nice guy

Paul Joseph Watson (1982–), also known as PJW or Pyjama Watso, is an alt-lite English YouTube conspiracy theorist, anti-feminist, Islamophobe, political extremist and Neo-Nazi-in-denial who uploads hate-filled, fearmongering videos on his YouTube channel and writes absurd and bigoted articles for Prison Planet, a sister site of Alex Jones' Infowars. Watson has helped normalize innumerable conspiracy theories, such as the "Clinton is dying" hoax.[2] In 2019, Facebook banned Watson, Alex Jones and Infowars and four other individuals (Louis Farrakhan, Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer) as "dangerous individuals and organizations".[3][4]

His YouTube channel has 1.8 million subscribers and over 400 million views.[5]

During Donald Trump's election campaign Watson embraced the alt-right and considered himself a part of the movement,[6][7] apparently oblivious to its racist elements.[8] Watson had believed the genuine neo-Nazis were a "tiny, vocal, fringe minority of the alt-right."[9] Shortly after Trump's election victory, Watson began distancing himself from the alt-right when he realised many of them blamed the Jews for everything bad in the world and were not overly fond of non-white people.[10] He then dismissed the alt-right as "right-wing SJWs."[11][12] Since November 2016 he has completely rejected the label and seems to now hate being associated with the movement.[13] Watson, not one to shy away from a conspiracy, has suggested alt-right figure Richard Spencer may be an FBI informant similar to Hal Turner.[14] Even Watson finds Spencer to be extreme.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[AccessBlaster]

The reason the plunger is depressed is because they stuck two people with the same needle.

 

[moke123]

The reason the plunger is depressed is because they stuck two people with the same needle.

I'll recycle Issac's reply

Can you find anything positive

 

[moke123]

Speaking of finding something negative . . .

Millions forced to cancel Christmas as mutant coronavirus strain spreads in U.K.

"We have alerted the World Health Organization and are continuing to analyze the available data," the chief medical officer for England said.

www.nbcnews.com

U.K. Says New Strain of Coronavirus Is More Transmissible Than Earlier Variant

The U.K. imposed a fresh lockdown across London and surrounding areas of England to combat a new strain of coronavirus that appears to be significantly more contagious than earlier variants of the pathogen. Scientists say the new variant might be as much as 70% more transmissible than more establis

www.wsj.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

No mention of party affiliation, being a democratic or progressive is not enough, only age and ethnicity.

Assistant Prof Medical Ethics & Health Policy Harald Schmidt

 

[moke123]

No mention of party affiliation, being a democratic or progressive is not enough, only age and ethnicity.

You should read the Times article for context. It's pretty interesting.

Kinda funny that the NY Post story quotes 2 people from Twitter, One has 20 followers and the other has 25.

The jist of the times article:

Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death or curbing the spread of the virus and returning to some semblance of normalcy is the highest priority. “If your goal is to maximize the preservation of human life, then you would bias the vaccine toward older Americans,”
“If your goal is to reduce the rate of infection, then you would prioritize essential workers. So it depends what impact you’re trying to achieve.”

 

[AccessBlaster]

Actually the jist is:

 

[Steve R.]

@moke123: You failed to provide a link to your Times article. I am assume that you are referring to this article: The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First? it contains your key phrase. Given that you have quoted this article in a totally inappropriate manner. It is an article that promotes decisions based on race and age. Or to be more blunt. It is a racist article.

PS: Would you now acknowledge that the Times is actively fostering racism and hatred? That the promotion of racism and hatred is not coming from the so-called hate-filled bigoted right-wing rags. It has been coming from the rabid left wing media to promote divisiveness in this country. Prior to the election this was being done to manipulate the gullible public to vote for the artificial construct known as Biden. Now it is being weaponized forward, into the future, to make "identity politics" (racism) as a acceptable decision tool contrary to the concept that all people should be treated equally. Martin Luther King would find what is going on to be repulsive.

Tucker: CDC's horrific vaccine distribution plan governed by race​

Ethics expert to NYT: Delaying vaccine for 'older ... whiter' people will 'level the playing field'​

Posting addition: The American Left Has Now Fully Embraced Racism


The push to make decisions based on race continues. Essentially, the left is pushing racist policies along the Orwellian style mantra that: "we must have more racism, to end racism". This bodes ill for the incoming Biden administration's assertion that they will seek "unity" and "restore the soul of America" as Biden will not put an end to the promotion of identity politics. Biden will probably advocate this type of divisive behavior,

 

[AccessBlaster]

The voting roles will eventually be weaponized against older white voters, it's a logical extension of leveling the playing field.

 

[Steve R.]

Something more to ponder: Michael Goodwin: New York Times admits to major blunder – but these errors go uncorrected.
While this story may have nothing to do with Covid-19, it does document that some of the stories published turn out to be fake. So, by implication, are the Times articles concerning Covid-19 constitute fake news? One can obviously say that the Times is not being reliably "honest" (fake news) with its readership, and maybe when cited its newsworthiness should be considered dubious.

The bizarre episode is important because it helps illustrate what has happened to the Times since it abandoned its standards of fairness and accuracy to pursue a far-left political and cultural agenda.

The Times was the lead offender in the greatest error in modern journalism: The false claims that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Then there is the 1619 Project, where the Times took it upon itself to rewrite American history, despite esteemed historians pointing out its major errors. For Baquet and his crew, facts didn’t matter in their bid to advance a radical racial narrative.

The citation above pointing to the (racist) 1619 Project, which the Times has been advocating, may well include a reason for why the Times published the racist article: The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?

 

[Isaac]

I was thinking we could give it to healthcare workers first, then essential workers and elderly (in a tie) at the same time.

 

[Jon]

To minimise death, I think you need an algo that factors in several elements:

• How fast do healthcare workers spread the virus?
• How fast will people get vaccinated?
• What is the risk of death for different age groups and gender?
• What is the risk for each group of catching the virus?

While the healthcare workers may spread the virus, it might not be enough to offset the lives saved from vaccinating the elderly first. I see it as a delicately balanced equation. Put in a few random variables, like they do with climate change models, and come out with where to allocate the jabs. Then just tweak those variables according to your political inclinations and claim it is all just science. I seem to be getting off track...

 

[moke123]

To minimise death, I think you need an algo that factors in several elements:

• How fast do healthcare workers spread the virus?
• How fast will people get vaccinated?
• What is the risk of death for different age groups and gender?
• What is the risk for each group of catching the virus?

While the healthcare workers may spread the virus, it might not be enough to offset the lives saved from vaccinating the elderly first. I see it as a delicately balanced equation. Put in a few random variables, like they do with climate change models, and come out with where to allocate the jabs. Then just tweak those variables according to your political inclinations and claim it is all just science. I seem to be getting off track...

The Times article discusses the issues involved and where do you want to focus to make a difference. The choices are to prevent deaths or slow the spread so that we can quickly get back to a somewhat normal life. They draw a distinction between front line workers ( healthcare, etc.) and essential workers (Bus drivers, supermarket workers, etc.) Obviously front line workers need to be protected in order to treat the sick and prevent death. By choosing to prevent death over spread the time needed to get back to normal will be longer. The racial aspect of the article discusses the fact that POC tend to have jobs that put them face to face with the public and thus more likely to get infected. A larger percentage of white people have jobs that can be done virtually, can more easily social distance, etc. POC tend to live in larger extended families, in smaller quarters, dont have cars requiring public transportation to get to work. So there is a delicate balance that needs to be considered. The NY Post article focuses on one sentence of the Times article because thats what tabloids do.

 

[Jon]

The problem we have in dividing medicine down racial lines is that Democrats have fought long and hard to ban discrimination down racial lines, so to go against their own rules would suggest they don't actually believe in what they say. You cannot say don't discriminate, and then discriminate.

 

[AccessBlaster]

All you have to do is substitute the word white for the word black. The outrage would be heard around the globe.