5 ms·

CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. Somehow that's not acceptable now a days. And desp

CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. Somehow that's not acceptable now a days. And despite this, there will still be people who will claim there's no censorship of conservative voices.

jjeaff 6y ago
I don't see any data that backs this statement up: >There is a COVID-19 virus; however, COVID is not more dangerous than all other flu-like viruses that impact the respiratory system. COVID-19 is very manageable and doesn’t carry a higher fatality rate.
- duck 6y ago
  I'm not saying that statement is true, but if we go by "don't see any data that backs this statement up", then that would be 99% of the internet.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    I think you might be stumbling on to something...
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    The comment you reply to was itself a response to a claim that this site in particular "never puts out any info without hard evidence". The comment you reply to disputes that. The rest of the internet is irrelevant.
- nl 6y ago
  Indeed, the doesn’t carry a higher fatality rate part is factually incorrect. It's sad to see people spreading this kind of thing because it causes problems for their ideology. COVID-19 has a fatality rate between 1 and 10%[1]. The variation is mostly due to testing - the places with the higher rate are under testing. The flu has a death rate around 0.1% in the US - although that overestimate it because most people who get the flu are never tested and don't report it[2]. The flu is also much less contagious than COVID-19. Influenza has a R0 of between 0.9 and 2.8 (for the 1928 Pandemic stream). COVID-19 is between 3 and 6[3]. [1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality [2] https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > COVID-19 has a fatality rate between 1 and 10% There's a whole slew of reasons why even 1% estimate is bullshit. Consider this: median age of COVID death is currently 78 years old. US all-age life expectancy as of 2018 is 78.9 years. That is, approximately half the people who are dying of this would die anyway that same year. Now granted, expectancy is a mean, not a median, but you get my point. 1% CFR means 3.3 million deaths in the US alone if everyone gets it, which everyone eventually will, and which exceeds even the most ridiculous estimates from March of this year by a factor of 1.5, and is quite obviously not going to happen. It's also ridiculously difficult to track down this median age number for the US, by the way. I wonder why that is. That's before we even consider how the US has 760 deaths per million, and the likes of Iran or Russia (which have nowhere near the medicine the US has) report one half and one third that correspondingly. So yes, C19 quite obviously has substantially higher CFR than the flu, but 9 months in nobody has any idea as to how much higher. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Consider this: median age of COVID death is currently 78 years old. US life expectancy as of 2018 is 78.9 years. That is, approximately half the people who are dying of this would die anyway that same year. You are confusing life expectancy at birth of 78.9 for life expectancy at age 78 of 0.9, that's not correct. Life expectancy at age 78 is 9.43 years for males, 10.98 years for females.
      - m0zg 6y ago
        Yes, and a lot of those 78.9 year old COVID patients will survive, although of course their probability of death is much higher. The point is not that. The point is it's dumb to pretend that the CFR is going to be uniform, and that just because it's 2.2% in the US at the moment, it can be linearly scaled up to the entire population (which is what would need to happen if we are to compare it to the flu, which easily 60% of people get in any given year), given the underlying demographics of fatalities. Downright dishonest, if you ask me. Again, it is more dangerous than the flu. But nobody knows by how much, and nobody is even trying to find out as far as I can tell. Seems like a crucial question that needs to be answered, no?
nl 6y ago
> CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. They have whole posts like https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/13/steve-cortes-discusses-the-election-of-statistical-improbabilities-ga-with-95000-biden-only-votes/ https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/13/steve-cortes.... Of course, this just isn't a thing![1] But people seem to believe it is because it is presented as fact. I guess they (or you) will argue they just pass along false rumours and that isn't their fault. But if they claim to be something that deserves any kind of protection against deplatforming then surely they can't just be a spam mill? People spreading falsehoods deserve limited protection IMHO. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-there-were-not-95000-biden-only-ballots-in-georgia/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-there-were-not-9500...
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > People spreading falsehoods deserve limited protection IMHO. Nobody deserves special protection from "deplatforming"[0] from the government; giving the government the ability to say "you must carry this speech" is just as tyrannical as giving them the right to say "you must not carry this speech". If one has the freedom to speak and associate, one must also have the freedom to be silent and disassociate. [0] It's amazing how many people who've been "cancelled" or "deplatformed" continue to tell me so on the internet. One can't help but wonder how effective this so-called deplatforming really is.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    > giving the government the ability to say "you must carry this speech" is just as tyrannical as giving them the right to say "you must not carry this speech" Don't we do exactly that with the phone company and the post office?
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      > Don't we do exactly that with the phone company and the post office? Neither allows you to target millions of gullible targets almost for free.
dibujante 6y ago
Their website is full of lies and conspiracy theories. Plandemic? Stop the steal? I hope you're joking.

jjeaff 6y ago

I don't see any data that backs this statement up: >There is a COVID-19 virus; however, COVID is not more dangerous than all other flu-like viruses that impact the respiratory system. COVID-19 is very manageable and doesn’t carry a higher fatality rate.

duck 6y ago
I'm not saying that statement is true, but if we go by "don't see any data that backs this statement up", then that would be 99% of the internet.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  I think you might be stumbling on to something...
- dllthomas 6y ago
  The comment you reply to was itself a response to a claim that this site in particular "never puts out any info without hard evidence". The comment you reply to disputes that. The rest of the internet is irrelevant.
nl 6y ago
Indeed, the doesn’t carry a higher fatality rate part is factually incorrect. It's sad to see people spreading this kind of thing because it causes problems for their ideology. COVID-19 has a fatality rate between 1 and 10%[1]. The variation is mostly due to testing - the places with the higher rate are under testing. The flu has a death rate around 0.1% in the US - although that overestimate it because most people who get the flu are never tested and don't report it[2]. The flu is also much less contagious than COVID-19. Influenza has a R0 of between 0.9 and 2.8 (for the 1928 Pandemic stream). COVID-19 is between 3 and 6[3]. [1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality [2] https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
- m0zg 6y ago
  > COVID-19 has a fatality rate between 1 and 10% There's a whole slew of reasons why even 1% estimate is bullshit. Consider this: median age of COVID death is currently 78 years old. US all-age life expectancy as of 2018 is 78.9 years. That is, approximately half the people who are dying of this would die anyway that same year. Now granted, expectancy is a mean, not a median, but you get my point. 1% CFR means 3.3 million deaths in the US alone if everyone gets it, which everyone eventually will, and which exceeds even the most ridiculous estimates from March of this year by a factor of 1.5, and is quite obviously not going to happen. It's also ridiculously difficult to track down this median age number for the US, by the way. I wonder why that is. That's before we even consider how the US has 760 deaths per million, and the likes of Iran or Russia (which have nowhere near the medicine the US has) report one half and one third that correspondingly. So yes, C19 quite obviously has substantially higher CFR than the flu, but 9 months in nobody has any idea as to how much higher. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Consider this: median age of COVID death is currently 78 years old. US life expectancy as of 2018 is 78.9 years. That is, approximately half the people who are dying of this would die anyway that same year. You are confusing life expectancy at birth of 78.9 for life expectancy at age 78 of 0.9, that's not correct. Life expectancy at age 78 is 9.43 years for males, 10.98 years for females.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      Yes, and a lot of those 78.9 year old COVID patients will survive, although of course their probability of death is much higher. The point is not that. The point is it's dumb to pretend that the CFR is going to be uniform, and that just because it's 2.2% in the US at the moment, it can be linearly scaled up to the entire population (which is what would need to happen if we are to compare it to the flu, which easily 60% of people get in any given year), given the underlying demographics of fatalities. Downright dishonest, if you ask me. Again, it is more dangerous than the flu. But nobody knows by how much, and nobody is even trying to find out as far as I can tell. Seems like a crucial question that needs to be answered, no?

nl 6y ago

> CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. They have whole posts like https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/13/steve-cortes-discusses-the-election-of-statistical-improbabilities-ga-with-95000-biden-only-votes/ https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/13/steve-cortes.... Of course, this just isn't a thing![1] But people seem to believe it is because it is presented as fact. I guess they (or you) will argue they just pass along false rumours and that isn't their fault. But if they claim to be something that deserves any kind of protection against deplatforming then surely they can't just be a spam mill? People spreading falsehoods deserve limited protection IMHO. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-there-were-not-95000-biden-only-ballots-in-georgia/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-there-were-not-9500...

ashtonkem 6y ago
> People spreading falsehoods deserve limited protection IMHO. Nobody deserves special protection from "deplatforming"[0] from the government; giving the government the ability to say "you must carry this speech" is just as tyrannical as giving them the right to say "you must not carry this speech". If one has the freedom to speak and associate, one must also have the freedom to be silent and disassociate. [0] It's amazing how many people who've been "cancelled" or "deplatformed" continue to tell me so on the internet. One can't help but wonder how effective this so-called deplatforming really is.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > giving the government the ability to say "you must carry this speech" is just as tyrannical as giving them the right to say "you must not carry this speech" Don't we do exactly that with the phone company and the post office?
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > Don't we do exactly that with the phone company and the post office? Neither allows you to target millions of gullible targets almost for free.

dibujante 6y ago

Their website is full of lies and conspiracy theories. Plandemic? Stop the steal? I hope you're joking.