Gyroscopic Investing

Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

For the number crunchers attempting to draw meaningful conclusions from all the data... Is it at all reasonable to suspect that what is reported in this article is an isolated attempt to manipulate the public?


https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morni ... 97611.html

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

Vinny, please advise. I'd like to know if I can refer to Mark in the future as a diviner of your posts.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:10 am Right, because we all know sunburn is communicable and contagious. I love the Babylon Bee, but this analogy falls flat.

SomeDude wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:39 pm
I think it's spot on.

Someone shared this earlier in my day.
{protect the protected meme}

I think that’s much closer to the mark.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm
Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

That is not at all how I'd read it.

Its seems the simplest, plainest reading is that of ALL the Black Protestant New Yorkers....70% of them are vaccinated.

There is no suggestion in the stats above which state how many Black Protestant New Yorkers there are or what % they represent of ALL New Yorkers.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:59 am

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

That is not at all how I'd read it.

Its seems the simplest, plainest reading is that of ALL the Black Protestant New Yorkers....70% of them are vaccinated.

There is no suggestion in the stats above which state how many Black Protestant New Yorkers there are or what % they represent of ALL New Yorkers.

Vinny, I'll help translate for you. Mark is chiding you for posting images and/or statistics with no commentary. He made an absurd interpretation to illustrate that he would prefer that you provide some interpretation, some commentary, or at least some reason to go along with whatever you're posting.

More for the number crunchers..

If only we had an early warning system..


https://nonvenipacem.com/2021/09/16/if- ... was-wrong/

Xan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:33 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:59 am

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm
Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

That is not at all how I'd read it.

Its seems the simplest, plainest reading is that of ALL the Black Protestant New Yorkers....70% of them are vaccinated.

There is no suggestion in the stats above which state how many Black Protestant New Yorkers there are or what % they represent of ALL New Yorkers.

Vinny, I'll help translate for you. Mark is chiding you for posting images and/or statistics with no commentary. He made an absurd interpretation to illustrate that he would prefer that you provide some interpretation, some commentary, or at least some reason to go along with whatever you're posting.

Responding the same way that I just responded to someone in private.

Whatever happened to the phrase: "A picture speaks a thousand words"? With the same for a chart or graph?

I believe what I put here provides relevant information related to the topic and which really needs no more commentary or interpretation by me. It is, however, an invitation to others to provide their own commentary or interpretation. Something which, in general, others here never seem to be shy of doing.

I'm seeing little difference between what I have done and someone else provided a URL with then a huge five word sentence "commentary". I generally almost never click on any URLs so they are usually of little value to me. But I'm generally a "live and let live" person so I make no public objections to anything anyone does that I do not find of any value to me. By doing so I'm neither trying to put a damper on anyone else's behaviors or trying to control their behaviors. It's super easy for me to sift through in this forum what is and what is not of value to me.

Finally, I'm never going to be able to behave in this forum so that at all times all that I do will meet Mark's standards.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:15 am Whatever happened to the phrase: "A picture speaks a thousand words"? With the same for a chart or graph?

I believe what I put here provides relevant information related to the topic and which really needs no more commentary or interpretation by me. It is, however, an invitation to others to provide their own commentary or interpretation. Something which, in general, others here never seem to be shy of doing.

I think the reason why forum members here tend to push back against frequent share-without-comment posting is that it's more appropriate for social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook -- not a discussion forum. People come here primarily to discuss things (or to read such discussions), not to follow other people's social media feeds.

Most of us occasionally post links or tweet/meme images without comments, but it's a small fraction of what we post (say, much less than 10%). It's when someone does it a lot that it starts to irritate the forum.

A former member of this forum used to create lots of new political threads that simply linked to an article or copy/pasted it, with minimal or no commentary added. Sometimes several in rapid succession. Several forum members got very annoyed by that and complained to him about it multiple times. It's a thing here.

Regarding URL links, the most effective approach I've seen is where the person posts a link and then quotes an especially relevant snippet from the article (not the whole thing!) so that a reader who's pressed for time can quickly get the gist of it without having to click on the link. By providing the relevant snippet but not the whole article, you save both (1) the reader's time (no need to click on the link) and (2) space on the reader's screen (no need to scroll past a huge wall of text).

In the post linked below, Geert Vanden Bossche explains the issue with mass vaccination campaigns in the face of a pandemic and specifically addresses the difference between personal health considerations and public health considerations.

Geert Vanden Bossche wrote:I hope people start to see that no single healthy individual should be considered more of an infectious threat than another and that there is no scientific rationale whatsoever for any individual, whether vaccinated or not, to discriminate against contacts with any healthy vaccinated or unvaccinated person. THE one and only big issue is the scale of this vaccination campaign. None of the current Covid-19 vaccines can live up to the challenge of controlling a pandemic of a highly mutable virus, let alone when variants are already predominantly circulating. When vaccines work, but are not perfect, and you massively deploy them in the heat of a furious (Delta!) pandemic, then you’re in really deep trouble.

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post ... -studiorum

A week or so ago, I unintentionally misstated that Dr. Vanden Bossche "accurately predicted that mass vaccination with leaky (imperfect) vaccines during a pandemic would only drive the production of more infectious and dangerous variants". It's a burden I will carry for the rest of my life.

It would be more accurate to say that Dr. Vanden Bossche has argued that mass vaccination with imperfect vaccines during a pandemic would facilitate the propagation of more infectious variants. The SARS-COV-2 virus mutates on its own, and the vaccines facilitate the spread of the resulting variants. The vaccines do not actually cause or create new variants. His March 2021 letter to public health authorities explains his argument in more detail (and makes a case for different vaccines focused on NK cells):

https://37b32f5a-6ed9-4d6d-b3e1-5ec648a ... 9cd1dc.pdf

Some say that the rapid spread of the Delta variant, even among and by the fully vaccinated, is evidence of Dr. Vanden Bossche's argument. I am not claiming that here, I am just sharing information that I find interesting. Read his work and decide for yourself.

These claims rely on his belief that there are somehow two immune systems: an "innate" one and then some other one that vaccines deal with. This is totally bogus and the reason why this fellow is completely alone (apart from the people who just want him to be right) in the scientific community.

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:38 am These claims rely on his belief that there are somehow two immune systems: an "innate" one and then some other one that vaccines deal with. This is totally bogus and the reason why this fellow is completely alone (apart from the people who just want him to be right) in the scientific community.

Huh?

The innate immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates (the other being the adaptive immune system). The innate immune system is an older evolutionary defense strategy, relatively speaking, and is the dominant immune system response found in plants, fungi, insects, and primitive multicellular organisms.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_immune_system

The adaptive immune system, also referred as the acquired immune system, is a subsystem of the immune system that is composed of specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminate pathogens or prevent their growth. The acquired immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates (the other being the innate immune system).
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system

And if Wikipedia is not good enough, here's another reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279396/

Sorry folks, I was way off the mark on this one!

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:24 am
Some say that the rapid spread of the Delta variant, even among and by the fully vaccinated, is evidence of Dr. Vanden Bossche's argument. I am not claiming that here, I am just sharing information that I find interesting. Read his work and decide for yourself.

I don't remember ever hearing about Dr. Bossche but I have heard others make the same argument that administering a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic was a bad idea for the reasons suggested. Sounded like a perfectly logical argument to me but I have no qualifications for judging the merit of it and won't even try.

Apparently, the argument was rejected by the powers that be and now we all are part of the grand experiment that is well underway and you are part of it whether vaccinated or not. I'm sure many books will be written about it in the future.

APNews.com wrote:An influential federal advisory panel has overwhelmingly rejected a plan to give Pfizer booster shots against COVID-19 to most Americans, but it endorsed the extra shots for those who are 65 or older or run a high risk of severe disease.

The twin votes Friday represented a heavy blow to the Biden administration’s sweeping effort to shore up nearly all Americans’ protection amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant.

The decision was made by a committee of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration.

https://apnews.com/article/fda-panel-re ... 24807a59f1

Wait I thought the powers that be, and/or democrats, and/or governments, all want to keep on injecting us? Hmmm, this throws a slight wrench into that narrative.

But I am sure someone will figure out some devious reason those sneaky bastards are doing this.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:40 pm Wait I thought the powers that be, and/or democrats, and/or governments, all want to keep on injecting us? Hmmm, this throws a slight wrench into that narrative.

You actually believe that the science will override politics in 2021? i.e. that there will not be found some reason to change their mind and have the booster mandated despite this setback?

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:41 pm And you really believe there actually is 'science' and not just politics in 2021?

Mostly no, and not even medical journals have escaped contamination. However if physicians/scientists are going against "the tide" e.g. the two senior leaders in the FDA's Vaccine Review Office who resigned (or were going to resign) and now a federal advisory panel does not recommend routine booster shots, one is left with either a. there is no science to mandate routine booster shots for all or b, it is politics. In this case it seems less/unlikely that politics is behind this. Can you make an argument for politics driving their behavior?

I just heard on the news that the vote on approving the booster shot at the FDA was 16-2 against.

Wonder why?

If the shots are so great, then what is wrong with a booster?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:49 pm I just heard on the news that the vote on approving the booster shot at the FDA was 16-2 against.

Wonder why?

If the shots are so great, then what is wrong with a booster?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

The two senior leaders of the FDA that are resigning participated in the writing of this article in The Lancet which explains their reasoning for not recommending boosters. It’s not the official FDA response but it’s probably pretty close.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 8/fulltext

MangoMan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:41 pm

Benko wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:39 pm

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:40 pm Wait I thought the powers that be, and/or democrats, and/or governments, all want to keep on injecting us? Hmmm, this throws a slight wrench into that narrative.

You actually believe that the science will override politics in 2021? i.e. that there will not be found some reason to change their mind and have the booster mandated despite this setback?

And you really believe there actually is 'science' and not just politics in 2021?

It's called political science

MangoMan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:34 am the logical political argument here is that third world countries won't be getting their doses fast enough if the US starts giving third doses here.

It seems like there is always some agenda, and also nothing is as it seems. Why is that?

1. the argument that 3rd world countries won't be getting their doses fast enough if US citizens get boosters is being made, but is irrelevant to the actual people who hold power. They care about little except power.

2. Many many things are not as they seem because some (large group to be sure) live by "by any means necessary" and lying to get their way is nothing to them. This trait ain't equally distributed over the political spectrum and is found much more among the power hungry, their useful idiots, other left of center folks, and to a much less extent among "libertarians" (if there are any actual ones still around) and those right of center. NB: Power hungry people/politicians willing to lie can be anywhere on political spectrum, but among e.g. voters willing to lie is much higher among those on the left.

I'm surprised at the FDA vote, but there was a good rationale for it: the Pfizer vaccine is still very effective at preventing severe disease, which is the real reason for the vaccine. The risks of the booster were deemed simply not worth it to prevent mild illness.

I was quite heartened by the vote because it means 3 good things:

1. The FDA is not going to blindly follow the lead of the Biden administration's royal edicts.

2. The members of the FDA panel are aware of the difference between clinical illness and a positive test. And, that the goal of eradicating COVID is stupid and unrealistic. In other words, the decision was made based on the science, rather than the political narrative.

3. At most two panel members are planning to get juicy jobs at Pfizer after their FDA terms are up.

I hope the people who have been distrustful of government intentions with the vaccine sit up and take notice of this. It really feels like the FDA did its job - for once. I hope also I'm reading the tea leaves correctly!

I believe the FDA decision did advise booster shots for those over 65.

I received an email from the health department when it came time for me to get my Pfizer shots back in March. Nothing yet about a booster yet but at this point I'm leaning towards declining the offer.