Jump to content

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It


Auburnfan91

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Either I was intellectually dishonest or you misinterpreted the words that I typed. 

If I am lying intentionally then I don't need to be here. 

If I am being dishonest and don't know it then I also don't need to be here.

Let me ask you this: Why would you think that anyone would suggest that we have more "bad" testing and not more "good" testing? Why would *anyone* feel the need to specify that they want better testing in addition to more testing? Never mind that I actually did specify that *in my next 2 responses to your initial question*. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Let me ask you this: Why would you think that anyone would suggest that we have more "bad" testing and not more "good" testing? Why would *anyone* feel the need to specify that they want better testing in addition to more testing? Never mind that I actually did specify that *in my next 2 responses to your initial question*. 

I don't think anyone would suggest more bad test and not more good tests. No one that I remember referred to the tests as bad or good.

Is an RNA test that takes 2-10 days to get back a bad test? No. Especially when it is the best you've got. The tests are not bad or good, but they may be helpful or not helpful.

As I stated, I interpreted "more testing" to mean more of the testing that we have been doing. If you specified that we need better tests and I said we didn't then just post it here and you will have won!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't think anyone would suggest more bad test and not more good tests. No one that I remember referred to the tests as bad or good.

Is an RNA test that takes 2-10 days to get back a bad test? No. Especially when it is the best you've got. The tests are not bad or good, but they may be helpful or not helpful.

As I stated, I interpreted "more testing" to mean more of the testing that we have been doing. If you specified that we need better tests and I said we didn't then just post it here and you will have won!

Jesus Christ, man. Now you're pretending you don't know how scare quotes work. 

As for posting something here, I just did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I will happily make the same offer to you.

Excuse me but you made the claims. It's up to you to prove you made them, not for me to prove you didn't.

As for the other conditions of your "offer" I'll go over them once again:

 

Prove me wrong on any of these points and I will never be a bother to this forum again:

1. The predominant testing for COVID-19 that has been done in this country outside of hospital since March has been send-out tests that take 2-10 days to get results. Correct. (I will admit that when not otherwise stated I have assumed that more testing has meant more of the testing that we have been already doing.) Also correct.

2. The billions that have been spent on testing have mostly been for the type of tests in #1. Probably true, except I challenge the amount, especially if you are implying it's only federal spending.  But you can even include state spending. 

Of course, the real point is that better tests aren't available to us thanks to the lack of federal effort starting months ago (Trump).

2. I have never said we do not need better testing. Irrelevant.  And I didn't say you didn't.  But you have continually asserted that spending on "testing" is a waste of money.  I didn't see any qualification or clarification on your part to distinguish current testing from new, fast testing.

3. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on better testing. Nor have you suggested we should.  All you've done is argue the relative worthlessness of the only testing we have, apparently assuming the issue is to spend billions more on the same thing.

4. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on developing treatments or vaccine. Irrelevant. And no one said you did.

You have me figured out! I stayed up all night last night coming up with a way to save face to a bunch of people who have no respect for me whatsover. That's your conclusion!

----------------------------------------------

Look, you didn't make yourself clear when you first started this spending-on-testing-is-a-"waste of money" chain of argument.

Even if this current revision of what you really meant is honest, it's a little late to make it now, especially considering you had plenty of opportunity to do so at the time with all the negative feed back.

I even asked if you were suggesting people would simply refuse to do what they should after testing positive.  That was a perfect time for you to explain they wouldn't be doing what they should until they at least got back a positive result, which now takes several days or more.  That would have clarified the point of contention.  (I am assuming that time lag was the basis of your contention that testing doesn't change people's behavior, but I could be wrong.)

So, from reading your posts, my perspective is that you were assuming I - and others - were talking about spending billions on our existing slow tests (God only knows why, since I kept alluding to more and faster testing being critical) or you didn't even think about the need for spending (maybe)"billions" to develop and produce adequate numbers of newer, faster tests we really need.

Just own up to your lack of clarity from the beginning.

And, all these specific challenges to prove you said or did otherwise from the beginning come across as weaseling.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Either I was intellectually dishonest or you misinterpreted the words that I typed. 

 

OK, so what exactly did you mean by this?

"Does it seem odd to spend billions for testing for a condition that has no treatment?"

That sounds like a generalized critique of spending money on (any) testing to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief. There are literally countless accounts from doctors, not perceived experts on a meaningless forum, contend HCQ successful on patients. Look it up and let it go. Can we not lock down a meaningless thread where non-expert opinions matter not at all? Jesus you people. Move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Geez, we need to be able to combine a "laugh" icon with a "face slap".

I can agree with that. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I can agree with that. ;D

Hint: We aren't talking about HCQ.  We hijacked that discussion to the merits of spending more money on testing.

But your statement on HCQ was moronic.  And ironic. 

Ironic because the people insisting it's the answer are far, far less expert than those - on this forum - who understand what the actual medical and scientific standard is that would define it as an "answer".  They haven't been met.

That doesn't make us "experts" by any means.  It does make us more scientifically literate than the proponents we are arguing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hint: We aren't talking about HCQ.  We hijacked that discussion to the merits of spending more money on testing.

Shame on you. Highjacking? Unheard of on this forum. ;)

But your statement on HCQ was moronic.  And ironic. 

Do tell. Can't handle facts? Actual results on patients?

Ironic because the people insisting it's the answer are far, far less expert than those - on this forum - who understand what the actual medical and scientific criteria are that define it as an answer.

I've see no one state it is the answer, but according to some doctors, evidence of it actually being beneficial is real. Do your research. And before you even try, no they are not contending scientific research just actual results. Get that thru your head and move on.

That doesn't make us "experts" by any means.  It does make us more scientifically literate than the proponents.

No sh**. In a clinical trial perhaps, but you cannot or should not discount actual success. Let it go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good grief. There are literally countless accounts from doctors, not perceived experts on a meaningless forum, contend HCQ successful on patients. Look it up and let it go. Can we not lock down a meaningless thread where non-expert opinions matter not at all? Jesus you people. Move on. 

go eat another cookie. if this forum is meaningless what are you doing here.......for years   lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

go eat another cookie. if this forum is meaningless what are you doing here.......for years   lol

entertainment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

entertainment

well i am an entertainment by nature. i wish i still had a decent band and i would surprise you.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

well i am an entertainment by nature. i wish i still had a decent band and i would surprise you.............

Link a tune from your band fidy. I am all ears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Link a tune from your band fidy. I am all ears. 

i lost all my stuff we had to a keyboard player that has moved on. i thought i posted me singing sitting on top of the world on here. i might have that somewhere. one of the few vocals i did not like. others thought it was fine..........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i lost all my stuff we had to a keyboard player that has moved on. i thought i posted me singing sitting on top of the world on here. i might have that somewhere. one of the few vocals i did not like. others thought it was fine..........

 

Well that is a disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Not really they sounded bad really really bad............;) j/k fiddy j/k

Out of likes. :rimshot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

OK, so what exactly did you mean by this?

"Does it seem odd to spend billions for testing for a condition that has no treatment?"

That sounds like a generalized critique of spending money on (any) testing to me.

 

As I explained, I was using "testing" to mean the way we have been testing. Or, as I have also said, testing that will in no way change the treatment plan. I'm sorry it sounded different to you. I am sorry that I was not more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well that is a disappointment.

i am pretty sure i posted it on here once. now with all the hell i have raised on the pol boards i am afraid for anyone to know who i am   lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i am pretty sure i posted it on here once. now with all the hell i have raised on the pol boards i am afraid for anyone to know who i am   lol

Sorry I missed it.

Fear not, I have a particular set of skills with a discipline in executive security. It is a six figure contract with an additional initial investment of 50K for certain apparatus, but comes with my guarantee. I have no doubt you meet the qualifications based on your history here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Grumps said:

As I explained, I was using "testing" to mean the way we have been testing. Or, as I have also said, testing that will in no way change the treatment plan. I'm sorry it sounded different to you. I am sorry that I was not more clear.

you betcha ;)

I'm just not assuming all those qualifiers you didn't use, like I'm supposed to do.

(If you want me to accept your "apology" you need to delete everything above in red.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

you betcha ;)

I'm just not assuming all those qualifiers you didn't use, like I'm supposed to do.

(If you want me to accept your "apology" you need to delete everything above in red.)

Are you saying that you thought I meant that we should not have spent billions on tests that don't exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sorry I missed it.

Fear not, I have a particular set of skills with a discipline in executive security. It is a six figure contract with an additional initial investment of 50K for certain apparatus, but comes with my guarantee. I have no doubt you meet the qualifications based on your history here.

ok 78 just for you. i did a cd in the mid nineties and part of it is pretty good and some sucks. i have no idea how to take a cd and put songs on youtube but i am going to seek out help so you can get a taste. it might take a week or two cus people just do not want to help like they used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that you thought I meant that we should not have spent billions on tests that don't exist?

Not to pile on (since we had a decent convo before), but didn't I link you an article about a better test before and you reacted to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...