Jump to content

mcclane

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mcclane

  1. 9 hours ago, rev ronin said:

    You truly don't understand what I said, do you?

    The reasons for "coming to the opposite conclusion when presented with evidence" can have one of two fundamental causes:

    - the person remains ill-informed.  There's nothing about the presentation of evidence that necessarily informs any person receiving it.  It may be poorly presented, contradict strongly held beliefs of whatever nature, literally a million different reasons could interfere with a patient internalizing the correct information with which they are presented.  Thus, the patient remains uninformed despite being exposed to correct, beneficial information.

    - Alternatively, they could have truly understood and internalized the message and the risk/benefit ratio to themselves and others... and simply not care. That would be psychopathological, in my technically incorrect usage of an outdated term that quite adequately conveys exactly what I mean.

    Thus, my assertion remains that the set of people who 1) really understand Covid-19 vaccination, 2) refuse every available Covid-19 vaccine, and 3) act conscientiously in doing so is the null set.

    I see. So in this thread, you have made up your own definitions of ill-informed, un-informed, vaccine hesitancy, psychopath, and herd immunity. Clearly, you are obfuscating and backtracking into semantics at this point, so again, I refer you to the literature to acquire a basic working vocabulary on the subject. You are neither ill-informed nor a psychopath, you are simply evidence hesitant, which is hilarious, given the argument you are trying to make.

  2. On 4/9/2021 at 7:43 PM, rev ronin said:

    I'm aware of the research.  I'm still not seeing how any of it contradicts my assertion that people refusing ALL Covid-19 vaccines for adults are either misinformed or psychopaths.  That is, if anyone is sufficiently well-informed and conscientious, they will get a vaccine for any adult, including themselves, when available.

    So you are "familiar" with the research, but you somehow come to your own, completely inappropriate, conclusion - one which is not supported by the body of evidence. The paradoxical behavior of coming to the opposite conclusion when presented with evidence is a significant contributor to the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy in a nutshell.

  3. 19 hours ago, rev ronin said:

    By "well informed" I'm including both evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy (including lack of microchips, etc.), as well as risk/benefit logic.  Hmm.  Ok, I also modify my statement to limit it to those making decisions on behalf of adults.  Given those caveats,  would you further assess my statement as inaccurate, and if so, how?

    You would benefit from reading studies describing the beliefs held by those with vaccine hesitancy and the relative success seen with various strategies to combat it. NEJM is a good source.

  4. On 3/28/2021 at 7:30 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

    You can listen and improve things.

    Or you continue your moderation practices and have the same 15 people (13 of which have the same position on everything) do the discussing, while hundreds just check in and see that it's too woke for us to participate.

    Rolling here with you seriously thinking that there are hundreds of right wing boomers visiting this site with the hope of finding like minded right wing boomers with which to share their latest facebook meme's and Cucker Tarlson slogans.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  5. 13 minutes ago, CJAdmission said:

    You implied I'm a racist.

    No, this is what I said, "Downvoted for low quality, racially charged, anecdote composed of hearsay and confabulation." The quality of your post was very poor, I downvoted it, and you bitched about not knowing why. I have explained. You have moved on to desperately trying to redefine the argument into a nice big broad us vs them issue, which I don't care about.

     
    • Downvote 1
  6. No one should have any question that Boat's is defended by the mod majority here. His best lines from this thread alone:

    For some reason he gives me free rent in his vacuous head.

    He is about as annoying as gnat.  Best to just ignore him.

    Must be terrible to have such sensitive skin.  

    Since you seem to lack the ability to understand anything I write, how about you just hit that ignore button so you don't have to read anything I post anymore, okay?  That way your highly-emotional state won't force you to get "enflamed" or "spit coffee".

    You seem to view everything posted through an overly emotional lens.  

    Great example of you viewing my posts through your overly emotional lens.  

    Remember that annoying kid from 3rd grade who would put his fingers in his ear and repeatedly yell "You're a liar and I'm not!"

    Well, he never grew up emotionally.  Now he posts here, but his posts are nothing but personal insults as he still has nothing to actually contribute to any conversation.  And he downvotes everything because he still thinks the important things in life are things like popularity.

    Annoying as a gnat, but the moderators allow such behavior for some reason, so best to just ignore or him.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  7. Hey, mods.

    Has any poster in the past 3 months demonstrated even 10% of the trolling and insulting committed by Boats? How many posts in this thread alone began with, line 1, an insult directed against another forum member? Your strategy of allowing Boats to "troll-close" threads when he feels that he has said his piece only results in his inevitable re-emergence and cyclical behavior.

    • Downvote 1
  8. 4 hours ago, ventana said:

    Boats

    you are simply beyond logic

    you seem only interested in stirring the pot for the mere reason to create conflict

    many different posters are calling you out on your mis information and statements and all you do is pivot to a different topic

    It is impossible to nail down a smart person, particularly one who is inundated with media that primes him for exactly these arguments. We read the evidence and accept it for what it is and move on to the next topic. Boats is given the evidence and regurgitates the spin he is fed to "refute" the evidence, or moves on, or changes topic, or starts up real trolling, working on thread locks while slipping in the last word and the mods here fall for the bait. Seriously, talking to people like him only does one thing - it gives him a platform for spin and helps him hone his craft. There is no benefit to it, only harm. Stop giving these shitheads a platform to harm others.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  9. On 10/18/2020 at 9:14 AM, Boatswain2PA said:

    1. Expanded virtual medicine by allowing Medicare patients to use telehealth, with over 9 million telehealth visits by June.

    2. Working on IRS rule that would allow HRAs to pay for direct primary care.

    3. People who use HSAs are bow exempt from high-deductible requirements for 13 chronic conditions.

    4. Expanding Medicare Advantage, and encouraging Special Needs Plans for specialization of chronic conditions.

    5. Made it easier to get non-ACA approved plans such as short term plans for people who need temporary coverage, and expanding that from 3 months back to 12 months.  By allowing back-to-back 12 month policies, patients can have greater choice in insurance plans in areas that have lost insurance options due to the ACA.

    6. Lower insurance costs in 6 states (plus DC), but still going up in 44.

    7. Price transparency

    8. Allowing people to use  HRA money to buy their own insurance.

    Wow, compared to the epic clusterf*ck of mismanaging the pandemic starting at months before it even reached the US, this is a bunch of negligible nothingburgers. Hell, #2 is a "work in progress" for God's sake. Get off the national review.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2029380

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2029546

    • Downvote 1
  10. 13 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

    This wasnt a political thread until people started attacking the source as being political.

    It is a political thread when it is opened with, and based upon, a piece of journalism from a publication with a stated bias. It doesn't begin as apolitical - and only become political -  when it is pointed out that this is what you have done. Always the same old game with you.

    • Downvote 2
  11. 44 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

    If someone wants to actually READ the article it lays out some good news about treatments.  I figgured that would be good news.

    I'm sorry, I thought this was a medical forum. I do not read articles by journalists for medical news about treatments. I subscribe to the NEJM and Medscape and a host of other services to push information to me daily. Reliable sources that do not require that I continuously attempt to parse through propaganda to find the nuggets of truth. That is why no one here should be clicking on your link, period, despite your bizarre pleas for people to do so.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
    • Downvote 1
  12. 1 hour ago, CJAdmission said:

    A somewhat bold statement for not knowing me, but you should think whatever will help you sleep at night.

    Not the slightest bit bold at all. The vast majority of "independents" have voting records, viewing habits, and personal views that wildly contradict their claim, simple as that. I deleted the rest of your straw man.

    • Downvote 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, MediMike said:

    As noted in a different post, the Pelosi-Chinatown incident appears to be fairly hyperbolized.

    Every "both sides" argument presented by a supporter of the republican party is gaslighting at this point. There is so much trash in their politics, even supporters have largely abandoned trying to argue in favor for it. They are stuck trying to bring democrats down to their level with "both sides" arguments. Case in point, only the republicans would have to make up a term to slander the concept of "virtue", seriously...

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More