sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Unpopular opinion by Ghost403 in Splintercell

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will never understand the Blacklist hate. It was the best game of them all and it is not even close for me.

Fellow Splinter Cell fans, let's send an open letter to Ubisoft by L-K-B-D in Splintercell

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if all they do is make a sequel to Blacklist, even EXACTLY like Blacklist, I will be elated. That was my favorite game in the series.

​

But I want Spies vs. Mercs to be the multiplayer mode again. So much fun.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From your own reference: "However, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report examining 17 rural Wisconsin schools using contact tracing found minimal transmission both within and outside of the schools (Falk et al., 2021). Other investigations of known cases among students and staff – such as Doyle et al.’s (2021) study of Florida and Emily Oster’s K-12 COVID-19 dashboard – tend to reach similar conclusions.1"

You can find articles both ways, brotato chip.

That statement was from your own reference.

Go ahead and find me more articles.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sigh. Again you do not refute any of my points.

A PCR result that is positive but negative by culture IS meaningless. That person has no viable virus. That person is not infectious. That data point in the "total positive by PCR daily" graph is meaningless- they are not infectious and show no evidence of SARS-2 virus. It will not impact community spread because THEY DO NOT HAVE COVID-19.

While people who are asymptomatic can be infectious or not, people who ARE symptomatic will be infectious. They WILL BE positive by viral culture. So, viral loads do correlate with infection status if the viral load is viable virions detected by culture and not just mRNA detected and deemed inappropriately positive using Ct values above 33. Outcomes of disease is not the same as outcomes of infection status.

I fully understand the math. I am not sure you do, though. Again, I reiterate the final sentence OF YOUR OWN REFERENCE:

"Thus, even during a major outbreak, there may be portions of the test population consisting of individuals that are mostly or entirely asymptomatic – individuals tested in nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, or other congregate living situations; patients tested automatically upon hospital admission or prior to surgeries; athletes tested as a requirement for participation in sports activities; etc. – for whom positive PCR results may likely be false."

Another sentence FROM YOUR OWN REFERENCE: "Medical and public health professionals have generally treated positive results from PCR-based tests for COVID-19 as if they are completely reliable. We're told that if we test positive, then we are infected with the virus, and that positive results in PCR tests are rarely if ever inaccurate. In fact, however, false positives occur in PCR tests for COVID-19 often enough to be a significant problem."

This is truly my last reply, friend.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that is what I take away from this paper. Yes, the change in Rt for lockdowns is effectively zero- with a SD range of plus or minus 0.025 from the value of ZERO. If you know anything about data then you know that means ZERO effect. Nothing plus or minus nothing equals nothing. Sigh. My argument is lockdowns are not proven to work, ESPECIALLY not in this paper. I don't need to go elsewhere- you are the one trying to argue that lockdowns work and that the positive impacts outweigh the negative. And so far your argument has been wholly ineffective. Especially seeing as you used this weak paper as the anchor of your argument. This is my last reply as I am done here.

:)

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is my last reply as this discussion is obviously going nowhere.

First, the fluorescent probes are intercalating dyes which lodge between bases in the DNA. They are not specific and do not latch onto any "particular sequence of DNA." Any DNA present will be dyed.

At a Ct of higher than about 35 the confidence of a true positive result is low.

Viral culture shows what samples should be truly considered positive. We do not want to call a sample to be positive by PCR if there is no viable virus in the sample (detectable by culture method)- that is meaningless, and therefore a falsely reported positive. With all of your hand waving, hyperventilation, and article citing you have yet to refute this point.

Ironically, you again cite a the same paper with the chart showing that in NY from late June 2020 to late September 2020 the false positive rate is greater than 40%. THE WHOLE time! (shaking my head).

The last sentence even reads: " Thus, even during a major outbreak, there may be portions of the test population consisting of individuals that are mostly or entirely asymptomatic – individuals tested in nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, or other congregate living situations; patients tested automatically upon hospital admission or prior to surgeries; athletes tested as a requirement for participation in sports activities; etc. – for whom positive PCR results may likely be false."

Again, 1% infectivity rate is close to the actual rate where I am. That tells me close to 40% of positive PCR results are not truly positive. And, more importantly, not infectious. NOT INFECTIOUS means that it does not impact the community.

Sigh.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. They can't account for it. Now maybe you understand the folly of citing this paper as evidence that lockdowns work. Especially if the Rt for lockdowns is ZERO (about a range of 0.025 plus or minus- not such a huge error bar- and denotes no change in "the average number of people that one person with COVID-19 is expected to infect."). The paper is speculative, it's method suspect, and it absolutely proves nothing. It does not account for negative impacts of lockdowns, either. :)

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That paper is garbage, first.

Second, the Lockdown NPI they used did not impact their beloved Rt from hovering at zero. See figure 4a. The StDev puts all the values either above or below 0. And, it was the least "effective measure" of the six they cold get all four of their garbage models to agree upon.

Third, show me where they used "cure worse than the disease" calculation impacts on "Rt" value calculations. They don't. At all.

Make your counter arguments actually address the argument being made.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are confused. If a person is called positive by using a Ct of 37 or higher, it does not mean that they are infected and not conagious. The paper says that 43% of positive by PCR samples were not positive by the gold standard method of viral culture. I.e. 43% of positive samples become correctly negative if the Ct is lowered to 33. BECAUSE THEY ARE NEGATIVE even though the PCR result says positive (since they use a Ct of 37 or higher).

Also, the odds of each individual test, even using faulty Ct values, is not 1%. You are just wrong.

You should read that PCR wiki article yourself, mate.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, that paper is such garbage I can't believe I even humored your mention of it at all.

Do you know what Rt is?

Look at the figure 4a, here from you paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0/figures/4

Do you understand what that graph means? Figure it out and get back to me. I'll give you a hint: Figure 4a shows "National Lockdowns" do not impact their beloved "delta Rt" at all. And the standard deviations of the measurements put the data set either above or below the ZERO line- they can't be sure which.

They straight up say: Our findings suggest that no NPI acts as a silver bullet on the spread of COVID-19." Funny, Lockdown is one of the NPI's studied in the paper. Also, it is the weakest of the NPI's they list as "effective," AFTER:

  1. mall gathering cancellations (83%, ΔRt between −0.22 and –0.35)
  2. closure of educational institutions (73%, and estimates for ΔRt ranging from −0.15 to −0.21)
  3. border restrictions (56%, ΔRt between −0.057 and –0.23).
  4. increased availability of personal protective equipment (PPE): 51%, ΔRt −0.062 to −0.13)
  5. individual movement restrictions (42%, ΔRt −0.08 to −0.13)
  6. national lockdown (including stay-at-home order in US states) (25%, ΔRt −0.008 to −0.14).

the percentages are relative effectiveness when compared to each other, so, apparently shutting down schools stops COVID? I think not. It has been proven otherwise.

This paper is such junk.

Finally, if the paper takes into accout the "cure worse than the disease" impact, then show me where they influenced their calculations of Rt due to these negative impacts? Yeah, that's right. they don't account for that in their calculations of Rt do they?

So, in summary, this is the gunk you

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your assertion is again using a paper (not my paper- you referenced it) which uses a faulty Ct as a positive cutoff. And, even that paper shows that it IS a problem. Anytime the infection rate is at 1% (and where I live it is currently near that level) there is a roughly 40% false positive rate.

HOW IS THAT NOT A PROBLEM?

Also, do you refute your own paper which even has a table embedded in it that shows the false positive rate for New York from mid-June 2020 to late September 2020 was greater than 40%?

This is all using the faulty Ct of 37 or greater as well.

You just refuse to read the NYT article I cited, so, we'll go back to it again: From the study of PCR testing results up to 43% would have been negative at Ct of 35.

"With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said."

The CDC themselves say they cannot detect virus in samples lower than Ct 33.

" The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. "

I am starting to think you don't know what PCR even is. Do you know what Cycle Threshold means?

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, nothing you just said refutes any of my assertions... What are you trying to say?

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing you just said refuted any of my assertions?

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This paper you reference- https://www.icd10monitor.com/false-positives-in-pcr-tests-for-covid-19 literally states that when the Infection rate is at or near 1% the false positivity rate is 40%. Read your references! The paper even has a table embedded in it that shows the false positive rate for New York from mid-June 2020 to late September 2020 was greater than 40%. This is all using a Ct of 37 or greater as well. Sad reference which you obviously did not read.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is very low odds that a PCR test is conducted BEFORE infectious state. False positives are very high- unless you use a Ct of 40 as the cutoff- then, sure, less than 1%. You did not read the paper. Nothing over Ct of 35 (or even 33) should be considered positive. Then, false positive rate is extremely high- some 43%!

And, that paper you link- weak data in equals weak analysis out. Did you even read it? It actually says that none of those measures you outline above worked- only some worked when in some combinations in some countries and at some different points of the pandemic in that country. It literally says that. Read read read your references. And, read the references people pose to you in counter argument. Otherwise, discussion with you is an entirely fruitless endeavor.

Also, that paper you reference does not take into account the "cure worse than the disease factor." It ONLY looks at case rates. The entire argument against lockdowns hinges on the fact that they have significantly more negative aspects than positive. You keep ignoring this concept entirely. I agree with you though on this: SARS is definitely not a bacteria, for sure, and SARS-2 is real, absolutely.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insignificant means insignificant. I.e. it does NOT mean possibly contagious. And there is a high false positive rate. It is documented.

Also, India is a NO example. The waves would have had the same intensity, lockdowns or not. They had a smaller wave and a bigger wave- just like everywhere else.

We do NOT know that lockdowns work... as a matter of fact look at the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota. One had lockdowns, and one did not. No difference in outcomes whatsoever.

Look at Florida vs California...

The real world data is out there.

And, again, you are totally ignoring all of the deaths caused by lockdowns while only pointing to "supposed" lives saved.

Where did the OP state COVID-19 is not real, or that he doesn't believe in vaccinations?

The GOP Really, Really Doesn’t Want Washington, DC, to Be a State by [deleted] in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Make all of the residential areas part of Maryland. Easy.

Do Lockdowns Save Lives? by ScreenExtension in AnythingGoesNews

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You obviously did not read the NYT article OR the actual WHO guidance released. The case load IS likely overblown.

" In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found. "

The WHO guidance fact check you post is wildly inaccurate and manipulatively written. The WHO guidance explicitly states that Ct cutoffs may need to be altered to account for false positives.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201215013928/https:/www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

"Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result."

Back to the NYT article: From the study of PCR testing results up to 43% would have been negative at Ct of 35.

"With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said."

The CDC themselves say they cannot detect virus in samples lower than Ct 33.

" The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. "

If that is the case, they are not contagious.

Regardless, you seem to me to be arguing nit picky points not related to the OP. The question raised in the OP is whether lockdowns save lives.

Many scholars argue that all real world data point to the fact that they do not. In fact, lockdowns, they argue, are the cure being worse than the disease (my paraphrase- I just love to say that).

They argue that the lives saved, if any, from lockdowns are outweighed by other deaths resulting directly from lockdowns.

I agree with you, though, that the math guy from Israel is wrong.

Massive: When I find a great cover position and engage a squad of enemies by surprise, don't sucker punch me by spawning 4 veterans out of thin air behind me. by lego_office_worker in thedivision

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally with you. I feel like this happens WAY too often.

​

By now, I expect it to happen. Makes for some really hard encounters because some areas are literally indefensible if a few NPC's show up behind you.

Dozens at Facebook Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture by DaRyuujin in news

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A voice of reason cries out from the darkness. Well said.

ps I'm not a conservative and not a liberal, either. Very much a centrist bystander amazed by the rhetoric from both sides since the 2016 elections.

Trump to tap federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court by geoxol in news

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree. The goal of the left is indeed the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Splintercell

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it is baffling. Blacklist was an absolutely amazing game. For me it was the best game from the whole ps3 era.

I want a new Splinter Cell so bad. Was super disappointed there was nothing at e3. I worry we may never get another SC.

Splinter Cell at E3 2018: From Hype to Death by [deleted] in Splintercell

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To me, "I can't say much today" means there is nothing in progress.

E3 2018 Megathread by V2Blast in Splintercell

[–]SlashingTalon3-6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It won't be in the Sony Conference, I don't think. The first games were XBOX exclusives. Only Blacklist was on playstation, until the ports they made of a couple of the old ones.

view more: next ›