Same old crew arguing with the same old troll. Seriously people?

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

We'll im glad your willing to die on the .005% protective hill. 

While Maury's DNA test proved it unequivocally, you've at least supported his findings with your idiocy this morning. Congratulations! 

1 minute ago, greend said:

Same old crew arguing with the same old troll. Seriously people?

I'll give him credit, he's pretty good at trolling. Imma stop now though, I've said my piece. 

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

While Maury's DNA test proved it unequivocally, you've at least supported his findings with your idiocy this morning. Congratulations! 

I'll give him credit, he's pretty good at trolling. Imma stop now though, I've said my piece. 

I put the troll on ignore, but still have to see his posts.  Don't feed the troll.

9 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

As a practicing scientist, I can say with confidence that this is not correct.

so we are allowed to question? Thats not what we are being told. We are told we must trust the science? That to question the science means you are a bad person, please elaborate. 

16 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I mean, how can you trust the NFL anymore? This is a horrible look.  Between this and with Gruden getting railroaded, and Washington stuff being burioed?  Seriously? 

  My hypothesis that the Bears were getting and got screwed last night proved to be correct.  

8 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Science is a dialogue, which is why you have to delve deeper than newspaper articles, most journalists lack a scientific background and simply cherry pick a few sentences out of an article's conclusion or a quote from an author, and don't spend the time to actually read the article and note the caveats, or read similar articles and understand the conversation. Having been interviewed by reporters, it became obvious what they were looking for was a "sound bite," not to understand the complexities of a situation.

The quick and dirty way to educate yourself is find a couple recent review articles in reputable journals (there are numerous "fake" journals out there, look who's publishing the journal, though some open access journals are fine, if unsure, google the journal's name and read the critiques). A good review article summarizes the history and current state of knowledge. Meta-studies use statistical methods to aggregate the findings of numerous studies, many of which are too narrowly focused for anyone but those working in that area to spend the time to read.

Education is hard work, pulling crap off Facebook is easy.

I once was interviewed by the NY Times about a scientific matter.  Let's just say that the final product left something to be desired.

4 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

so we are allowed to question? Thats not what we are being told. We are told we must trust the science? That to question the science means you are a bad person, please elaborate. 

Of course you're allowed to ask questions, but, what exactly is it you're questioning? 

24 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

It's not about blindly following science. It's about the PROCESS. How many times does this need to be explained to you? Go read about what the actual scientific method is, and you'll understand that things change, constantly. 

N + 1 it would seem.

1 minute ago, Desertbirds said:

N + 1 it would seem.

Poor Jenner and Pasteur are rolling in their graves these days. 

I hope we claim Odell just so the blog at least has something football related to **** about. Can't be worse than reading a buncha D students try to bumble their way through epidemiology/virology.

23 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

As a practicing scientist, I can say with confidence that this is not correct.

If you're so good at science, why do you need to practice.  

23 minutes ago, greend said:

Friend of mine is a rabid anti covid vaxer. He almost died two weeks ago in the icu unit. 

It's terrible.  I am sorry to hear and I hope he's able to recover. 

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

so we are allowed to question? Thats not what we are being told. We are told we must trust the science? That to question the science means you are a bad person, please elaborate. 

There is questioning, then there is ignorance.

Questioning is normal, where you ask what is known with certainty, what is know with some degree of confidence and what is who the f--- knows? And it's important to read enough to distinguish these three, because experts are human and often exaggerate how well something is understood, especially when they're emotionally invested in a theory. This is why you should never depend on one source or one expert, like I've said, it's a dialogue.

However, questioning is not the same as embracing crackpot theories with no substantiation. Any jackass can get on the internet and propose a theory based on fake facts or misinterpreted articles. Anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it has to be understood in context, because it's too small of a sample to infer anything. So stories about someone being "cured" are meaningless, we know there are placebo effects, that it may simply be a coincidence, or someone is lying or misstating facts. A bunch of stories that seem to be legitimate are the starting point for an investigation, you still need rigorous studies to determine if there's anything there.

A good example are cancer hot spots - they are inevitable, much like tossing a coin 300 million times, you're going to get long stretches of head and tails, and you're going to get micro-regions with an unusual incidence of cancer. So you get the stories, it's due to the well water, something in the pipes, the factory upwind, etc. Sometimes there is a cause, often times simply the product of chance. You need careful study to distinguish the two.

34 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

I used to like the New Yorker but it is just too woke for me now.

That's why I only read The Jacobin.  

12 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Of course you're allowed to ask questions, but, what exactly is it you're questioning? 

Well lets talk about the COVID Vaccines to keep on current subject. I support them, but not COVID Vaccine mandates.

1) We dont know what the long term ramifications of each Vaccine are, if any. 

2) We do know there are small percentages of issues with the Vaccines, increased possibility of Blood clots and Myocarditis as examples

3) You can get Covid and transmit it while fully vaccinated

4) The Vaccines do seem to help lessen the severity when you get COVID - that is the benefit

5) We are now trying to mandate vaccinating Children, the group that is least vulnerable to COVID, and more Vulnerable for COVID Vaccine issues. 

6) People who have had COVID and survived with little issue are said to have immunities that are stronger than the vaccinated. Why would anyone subject themselves to unknown possible long term issues from Vaccines, why should they take that risk? 

7) If we are against Vaccine Mandates, we are told we are not trusting the science. Much like when you question anything Global warming wise.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

depending on the cost, I really would take him. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

depending on the cost, I really would take him. 

  of course you would.

You really are the ESP of this board.

The trouble today is that people can no longer disagree without being disagreeable.   There is only disagreeing hatefully.  Someone takes a stance opposite another person's, and the immediate response is hatred, vitriol and a need to 'destroy' that person.   

 

No need for the name calling, the ad hominem attacks and the like.   

11 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

so we are allowed to question? Thats not what we are being told. We are told we must trust the science? That to question the science means you are a bad person, please elaborate. 

Trust the science does not mean don’t ask questions as science evolves as we gain knowledge.  Sure, sometimes accepted science is incorrect as discovered through additional inquiry and gained knowledge. We saw that as scientific knowledge was gained about this virus.  I accept that we saw revisions.  That should have been understood throughout. We had scientists equipped to study disease thrust into the limelight with demands for answers on how to combat this pandemic. They provided their answers based on the knowledge they had at the time.  These recommendations weren’t made in a vacuum. 

Is it just me or does anyone else hate CBS broadcast games?

10 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I hope we claim Odell just so the blog at least has something football related to **** about. Can't be worse than reading a buncha D students try to bumble their way through epidemiology/virology.

Tuesday tryout day but we don’t see much on who tried out anymore.

47 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

still shocked people follow "science" blindly when time and time again it gets proven wrong, dangerous, or a mistake. 

I get it, the majority of the time we get it right, but to follow it blindly is insane to me. 

 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Is it just me or does anyone else hate CBS broadcast games?

The production quality for CBS seems below the level of the other networks.  

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Well lets talk about the COVID Vaccines to keep on current subject. I support them, but not COVID Vaccine mandates.

1) We dont know what the long term ramifications of each Vaccine are, if any. 

2) We do know there are small percentages of issues with the Vaccines, increased possibility of Blood clots and Myocarditis as examples

3) You can get Covid and transmit it while fully vaccinated

4) The Vaccines do seem to help lessen the severity when you get COVID - that is the benefit

5) We are now trying to mandate vaccinating Children, the group that is least vulnerable to COVID, and more Vulnerable for COVID Vaccine issues. 

6) People who have had COVID and survived with little issue are said to have immunities that are stronger than the vaccinated. Why would anyone subject themselves to unknown possible long term issues from Vaccines, why should they take that risk? 

7) If we are against Vaccine Mandates, we are told we are not trusting the science. Much like when you question anything Global warming wise.

1) no reason to think the issues are any different than typical vaccines. We have yet to see any long term side effects (unlike with COVID). Plus the mRNA is rapidly destroyed and beyond that it's the exact same pathway.

2) the myocarditis risks have been self limited. The blood clot risk is real with J&J, although very rare. All risks are MUCH lower than those same issues with COVID.

3) while true, the rate of transmission is lower.

4) this is an even stronger correlation and the largest goal

5) less at risk from death from COVID? Yes. More at risk from vaccine side effects? No.

6) this is false. Vaccine immunity has been demonstrated to be stronger than natural immunity in multiple studies. Particularly with boosters. Now vaccines + natural immunity has been shown to be extra effective. But that also requires a vaccine.

Questioning science is fine, but you also have to be willing to accept answers you don't like as well. 

 

18 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

so we are allowed to question? Thats not what we are being told. We are told we must trust the science? That to question the science means you are a bad person, please elaborate. 

To do science is to question.  At the cutting edges of science there is substantial disagreement among scientists. There are even camps or schools of thought. 

For basic questions, there is generally near uniform consensus (there are always some crackpots). For example, no credible scientist denies gravity, climate change, germ theory, evolution, etc. Now, there might be some argument around the margins but not about the general principles.

So when people say "trust the science" they are typically referring to well established principles.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

Why? NS wants to throw the ball all over the yard, OBJ's only real complaint is not getting the ball. 

Smith as your number 1, OBJ as your number 2(depending on price) and  Dallas..WITH A REAL QB next year could be fun

Exactly, we see video after video of hurts missing wide open dudes and you want to bring in a guy who was just complaining about his QB not throwing to him when he's open?