[Rushy]

No, not "then." You latched on to half a sentence in my first post and ignored everything else I said to make it seem as though I was being pedantic. I'll post my first quote again so there can be no misunderstanding:

I don't think I have to ignore anything you say to make it seem like you're being pedantic. After all, this entire, hmm, "discussion" is based entirely on you being pedantic!

But it doesn't "allude to the things you say." I'm not saying that the we-were-wrong-please-forgive-us elements are there, but they're too indirect for my liking. I'm saying they aren't there at all. The author isn't admitting to (or hinting at, or vaguely indicating, or whatever wording you prefer), being wrong about anything, outside of the anecdote about her family trying to social distance while hiking. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the main point of this article is that she claims to have been right along but is such a big person that she's willing to forgive  her critics. Have you read the article, by the way? Because I wouldn't be surprised if you still haven't.

Well this is certainly an opinion. While I can't claim your wild interpretations of other people's words is "wrong", I can point out that it doesn't seem to be the natural conclusion I would expect someone take take away from the article.

[honk]

From the article: "Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway."

I did say "outside of the anecdote about her family." It's not like she's saying that masking in general was useless. Doctors began clarifying quite early in the pandemic that people needed to wear surgical masks and not cloth masks to properly protect themselves.

"To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long:"

And? The author isn't saying she was wrong about this. She's saying that she was right all along.

"Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad."

And? Don't tell me you took this to mean that the author thought that telling people not to inject themselves with bleach because injecting themselves with bleach was actually good. That's clearly not what she meant. What was "bad" was the fact that the government had to tell people not to inject themselves with bleach, rather than it being common sense to not do that.

"Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips."

Yes, I suppose this could be considered valid evidence to support the we-were-wrong-please-forgive-us interpretation of this article. Beaches being closed doesn't usually rank high on the list of grievances held by pandemic skeptics, but nevertheless, this was a thing that society did (and ostensibly she agreed with at the time) that she's pleading should be forgiven. You get one. If the whole article was like this, I might have agreed with Rushy's interpretation of it.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. "

And? She's not clearly not happy about vaccination rates going down, as indicated by her describing it as people having "neglected their health care."

You are correct, Sadaam...[/sarcasm] The article only mentioned social distancing.

I didn't say the article only mentioned social distancing. I said the author only admitted to being wrong about covid policies in an anecdote about her family where they went to crazy lengths to socially distance themselves from others while on a hike. That, and I guess about public beaches being closed.

I don't think I have to ignore anything you say to make it seem like you're being pedantic. After all, this entire, hmm, "discussion" is based entirely on you being pedantic!

...

Well this is certainly an opinion. While I can't claim your wild interpretations of other people's words is "wrong", I can point out that it doesn't seem to be the natural conclusion I would expect someone take take away from the article.

I guess I'll take that as a "No, I still haven't read the article." Good talk.

[Action80]

From the article: "Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway."

I did say "outside of the anecdote about her family." It's not like she's saying that masking in general was useless. Doctors began clarifying quite early in the pandemic that people needed to wear surgical masks and not cloth masks to properly protect themselves.

Masking was totally useless, period....surgical masks are designed for...wait for it...surgery.

"To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long:"

And? The author isn't saying she was wrong about this. She's saying that she was right all along.

Outside of the personal anecdote, then...right?

"Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad."

And? Don't tell me you took this to mean that the author thought that telling people not to inject themselves with bleach because injecting themselves with bleach was actually good. That's clearly not what she meant. What was "bad" was the fact that the government had to tell people not to inject themselves with bleach, rather than it being common sense to not do that.

DO you tire of being wrong?

The whole "bleach," thing was just more of the FAKE NEWS bullshit that you, and others of the BS propoganda artists, were spewing because of Trump's comments relating to disinfectant. Trump never did suggest for people to inject or otherwise ingest bleach.

What was WRONG about it is government disinformation agents and MSM misinformation agents were actually treating the populace like idiots, deliberately lying about what Trump said.

"Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips."

Yes, I suppose this could be considered valid evidence to support the we-were-wrong-please-forgive-us interpretation of this article. Beaches being closed doesn't usually rank high on the list of grievances held by pandemic skeptics, but nevertheless, this was a thing that society did (and ostensibly she agreed with at the time) that she's pleading should be forgiven. You get one. If the whole article was like this, I might have agreed with Rushy's interpretation of it.

Jesus, holding on for dear life to save your lying mind from reality.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. "

And? She's not clearly not happy about vaccination rates going down, as indicated by her describing it as people having "neglected their health care."

^Double negative thrown in to protect the lying mind again.

You are correct, Sadaam...[/sarcasm] The article only mentioned social distancing.

I didn't say the article only mentioned social distancing. I said the author only admitted to being wrong about covid policies in an anecdote about her family where they went to crazy lengths to socially distance themselves from others while on a hike. That, and I guess about public beaches being closed.

Once again, this is exactly what you wrote and I quote it:

The author isn't admitting to (or hinting at, or vaguely indicating, or whatever wording you prefer), being wrong about anything, outside of the anecdote about her family trying to social distance while hiking.

Who the fuck said you said the article only mentioned social distancing?

Jesus, you fucking suck at this.

[Action80]

Now come the longer term studies and the truth of the foolhardy approach of taking a shot in response to a respiratory illness.

IT DOES NOT WORK!

You are more likely to get a respiratory illness if you get the shot for cofeve.

[Lord Dave]

Now come the longer term studies and the truth of the foolhardy approach of taking a shot in response to a respiratory illness.

IT DOES NOT WORK!

You are more likely to get a respiratory illness if you get the shot for cofeve.

You seem to have come to a different conclusion than the authors.  How unsurprising.

You know they were testing for influensa symptoms and not covid infections, yes?  And only in healthcare staff.  And only in Switzerland.  And only those with 3 or less vaccine doses.  And only those who replied to more than half the questionier.  And only between 2020-2023.

And, of course...
The days reported for being sick are .. 0,1, >=2

So basically the vaccine could make you feel sick enough to miss work.

Of course most missed 0 days of work and had 0 episodes regardless of vaccine status.  So there's that.

[Action80]

What different conclusion did I come to, LD?

Enlighten us all.

[Lord Dave]

What different conclusion did I come to, LD?

Enlighten us all.

That a covid vaccine doesn't work to prevent or lessen covid symptoms.
The study did not look at covid infections but general influenza episodes.

It's like looking at flu shots and seeing if it prevents you from getting a sore throat.

[Action80]

^Can't read a goddamn lick.

Why don't you continue the obtuse (in truth, more likely just a big lie) show LD. Point out where I wrote any of the shit you claim.


You can't

[Lord Dave]

^Can't read a goddamn lick.

Why don't you continue the obtuse (in truth, more likely just a big lie) show LD. Point out where I wrote any of the shit you claim.


You can't

Now come the longer term studies and the truth of the foolhardy approach of taking a shot in response to a respiratory illness.

IT DOES NOT WORK!

Taking a shot in response to a respiratory I'll ess does not work. 
Since the study was about covid, its rational to assume you meant covid Illness.

If you meant ""covid shots don't protect against respatiry illness in general" then you're right because only an idiot would think that.  I assumed you weren't an idiot.  Was that my mistake?

[Action80]

Is covid the only respiratory illness or should one just assume it is idiocy motivating your analysis?

Refer us all to the salient material identifying covid as the subject of the study.

You have no business including the word "rational" in any of your posts.