Lockdowns didn't really work....

[Sparko]

I guess it was supposed to be a joke?

Boy, sure got me. It’s like it’s hard to tell right-wing conspiracies and misinformation from satire.

Poe’s Law

Or you are just gullible. Did you not notice the reference to flying pigs?

[Roy]

If you blindly ignore attempts to dismiss the papers on ridiculous grounds then you are little more than a joke and why would I bother with you?

Because I've looked at the paper and am willing to discuss its actual contents, which is more useful than discussing what people on either side have said about its contents.

But you're not willing to discuss the paper's actual contents, preferring to comment only on what other people have said about it - which is pointless.

[Backup]

Or you are just gullible. Did you not notice the reference to flying pigs?

It's sometime hard to tell satire from the insane claims of conspiracy theorists.

Poe's Law

[Backup]

Not really. People often giving spurious reasons for rejecting conclusions they dislike, whether those conclusions are valid or not.

Nor do I find it strange that people are giving spurious reasons for accepting conclusions they dislike.

It's not even strange that people are rejecting the study findings without ever having looked at it. But since I have looked at it, their opinions on it are never going to carry any weight.

Do you have anything to say about that actual contents of the study (assuming you've read it), or are you just another time-waster?

With the lockdown study, the fact that it was trumpeted by COVID deniers and conspiracy theorists and immediately shot down by a bunch of medical sites and mainstream news sources is not a spurious reason to reject it.

When the COVID deniers first started posting it, I said that I thought Johns Hopkins was certainly a legitimate source. But Johns Hopkins publishes lots of information about COVID that the deniers reject. They took the rare move of backing away from this one.

[Roy]

With the lockdown study, the fact that it was trumpeted by COVID deniers and conspiracy theorists and immediately shot down by a bunch of medical sites and mainstream news sources is not a spurious reason to reject it.

I don't have time to write much now, but.... yes, it kinda is a spurious reason. It's an argument from authority unless you give the reasons why those medical sites rejected it.

More later maybe.

[Sparko]

It's sometime hard to tell satire from the insane claims of conspiracy theorists.

Poe's Law

A reference to pig's flying should have given any normal person a clue

PS - Poe used to be a member here. He was pretty much an idiot.

[Backup]

With the lockdown study, the fact that it was trumpeted by COVID deniers and conspiracy theorists and immediately shot down by a bunch of medical sites and mainstream news sources is not a spurious reason to reject it?

When the COVID deniers first started posting it, I said that I thought Johns Hopkins was certainly a legitimate source. But Johns Hopkins publishes lots of information about COVID that the deniers reject. They took the rare move of backing away from this one.

[Cow Poke]

I now pronounce you man and wife...

I'm beside myself!

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm beside myself!

You are your own best man:

[rogue06]

Your most intelligent and well thought out post to date.

Keep up the good work

[Backup]

Your most intelligent and well thought out post to date.

Keep up the good work

What wit and wisdom.

Ever think of writing a book of your pithy sayings?

[rogue06]

What wit and wisdom.

Ever think of writing a book of your pithy sayings?

Did one on jokes. Ended up selling the material in 2000 to a professional comedian who used much of it in his own book