Ahh okay now we're back to the first square and this discussion was pointless. I didn't say masks were not effective, I'm saying they are virtually useless in stopping asymptomatic spread in the general population.
And the experts are saying you're wrong. Studies show that masks stop the spread of the virus, whether the spreader is symptomatic or not. The fact that so many are asymptomatic is why before the vaccine they recommended everyone where a mask. This article explains it better than I could: Face masks essential in combating asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets Here's the study it's based on: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422But wait, that one's oveer a year old, ok, here's a more recent study (it's really based on about 12 separate studies, that I've already posted for you) from Feb 2021 (this is the third time I've linked it for you): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1 There's plenty more, open your eyes. |
|
|
|
he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?
From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context: Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective. He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect. Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy. You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific. It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them. You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-preventhttps://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/openhttps://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-knowhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118Your 10 seconds of google searching isn't a replacement for quality studies that account for real world factors, I had a feeling you knew that though. I clicked on the nature article you linked, because it's a credible journal, and they posted a study that was identical to what I said earlier, a laboratory setting where masks are used to measure the spread of aerosol particles in a controlled setting. Covid spread is not that simple, don't know how many times I need to say it. It was just two months ago when the CDC revised its social distancing guidelines from 6 feet to 3 feet. It was 4 months ago when they said it was 15 minutes in totality for high risk transmission, not just 15 minutes of sustained contact. We've been at this for over a year and we barely know anything. We don't know the exact mechanism of "super spreaders" either. Cool, click on another one then, try this one? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536Read the abstract, check out the table with all the different studies and results...and don't just bring up one study that you think is easiest to discredit and then use it to discredit all of them. Look at the results of all the studies as a whole. I'm not going to keep holding your hand and do all the research for you. It's obvious the evidence clearly points to masks being effective. We're still learning new stuff and we don't know precisely how effective, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective. |
|
|
|
he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?
From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context: Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. And what is wrong with what I said? He's downplaying the effectiveness of masks here. He isn't saying they are effective. He was right when he said this too. Masks will stop droplets from being propelled, but we don't have any idea how the virus spread, apart from it's an upper respiratory virus that is airborne. We don't know the extent of asymptomatic spread or pre-syptomatic spread, how long viral particles stay in the air, whether they are effectively caught in the masks, or whether viral particles just go around the mask due to a poor sealing on the face. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7What we dispute about masks is whether viral spread occurs because people enter a store, sneeze on everyone, and leaves -- and that a mask would somehow solve the issue, or whether the virus spreads through more complicated mechanisms that aren't well understood. And this isn't even taking into account the issue of people reusing masks, touching the mask which presumably has viral particles on it, then touching other people/surfaces, cheap masks that don't create proper seals with the face, ect. Sure, in a laboratory setting, you can create a circumstance where droplets are captured in a mask, the real world isn't so neat and tidy. You might ask why this is a bad thing, who cares if people wears masks? Well, Dr. Fauci explained it. It gives people a false sense of confidence. And well, it's also anti science from the party of everything scientific. It's really not that complicated. Early in the Pandemic there were a lot of unknowns. We didn't have the evidence we have now that the virus was being spread by asymptomatic people or that masks were a very effective way to stop it from spreading. We did have a shortage of masks for medical workers, and we knew that medical workers should be first in line to have them. You're shitting on Faucci for not knowing what nobody knew. In the interview he was clear, the whole point was the shortage of masks at that time. More people going out and buying masks would result in medical workers being less protected, which overall would be bad for the situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do a better job than the one Fauci did. I think your gripe is purely political and based on the fact that Fauci doing the right thing shined light on the fact that Trump was not fit to handle the situation. NONE of this was figured out between March 2020 and April 2020 when the guidelines switched and it still isn't even hashed out a year later. This isn't a right wing thing, show me the data. Show me the evidence and the research that masks actually did anything. The only research I found were laboratory simulated dummies exerting aerosol particles into a mask versus aerosol particles without a mask, which is something I or anyone else disputes. In some studies, they used real people, an example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7I googled it for you, some are articles explaining studies, with links to the studies, some are actual studies: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-preventhttps://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/openhttps://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-knowhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 |
|
|
|
he didn't say masks were effective but we should save them for the healthcare community, now did he?
From the March 2020 interview on 60 minutes that right wing media keeps taking out of context: Fauci: …There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks — that’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not against it. If you want to do it, that’s fine.
LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?
Fauci: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. |
|
|
|
Although, I feel like some of his fuck ups are now in writing, like him doing a 180 flip on masks without any new scientific evidence to suggest that masks do anything for asymptomatic spread.
Such a stupid take that's been spread by Trump supporters ever since it became obvious that Faucci thinks Trump is a lunatic. He said there's no reason to wear masks in like March, when there was a shortage on masks for healthcare workers and we didn't know how effective masks were yet. |
|
|
|
My parents thought I was exaggerating about brainwashed idiots on the internet the other day. Until I showed them your (and BADeckers) post history. |
|
|
|
Cases like this seem like a great opportunity for prosecutors to get those in his inner circle to flip on him to avoid prison. Remember, if you want to cooperate with the feds and work out a deal, you gotta share everything about any potential crime.
There were many cases that Mueller's team prosecuted that were intended to do exactly this, however, Trump was never implicated in any crime. If anyone had knowledge of Trump's crimes, it would have been Cohen, and he was unable to offer testimony implicating Trump in any kind of illegal behavior.
I think Trump will probably be indicted, but it is almost certain that the charges will be frivolous and he will ultimately prevail in court. Michael Cohen literally implicated Trump in his guilty plea (as individual number 1). Trump instructed Cohen to create a shell company to funnel money through, and also set up an arrangment with a tabloid, both with the sole purpose of hiding transactions from the FEC. He also implicated Trump while testifying in front of congress (despite Trump publicly attempting to intimidate him right before, another felony) the real estate deal for Trump Tower Moscow. Then there's the whole Trump organization investigation, which will likely be Trumps first indictment. We don't know whether or not Cohen has implicated Trump under oath yet since he hasn't had the opportunity to do so and the criminal investigation is ongoing. But it sure seems likely. |
|
|
|
|
a) 11 b) 1:55
a) 11 b) 1:55
|
|
|
|
also Trump: "The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!" If Trump meant the entire electoral database, he was mistaken. It was only one or several of the voting machines. However, just that one/several should be enough to void Biden out so we get a new election.  Except for the whole recount, certified, litigated, relitigated, no fraud found part. I would not say that the election was "litigated". Litigation was attempted, but the lawsuits were thrown out, usually for a lack of standing. This is different from the cases being ruled based on their merit, and is different from the courts even hearing the evidence. There were a bunch of cases that were ruled on, but I'll rephrase it anyway to avoid debating whether or presenting your case to a judge is 'litigation': "Except for the whole recount, certified, tons of lawsuits, no fraud found part." |
|
|
|
Yeah @Stunna had already said that the bonus was being sent even before he created this thread.. maybe he realized that now.
He didn't get the bonus because he wasn't entitled to it, and was banned. Apparently he got some other bonuses though. The bonus OP is talking about isn't promoted. At the beginning of each month VIP hosts give out cash bonuses to their 'top players'. AFAIK nobody is 'entitled' to it. I've heard rumors it's the top 1,000 wagered players, but only from other players.
If this was something offered to OP before hand, they would have a legitimate argument. But, I don't think this is the case. Basically they just give out money to whoever they want at the beginning of each month. It seems they didn't want to give any to OP for some reason.
This point exactly, these bonuses are not a guaranteed entitlement. The account in question was suspended in March. What is surprising is that Stake actually paid out bonuses even after that suspension for the user to withdraw and yet they are still here posting this. This account was overpaid bonuses when they should have reasonably been immediately cut off. |
|
|
|
Relaunch is soon (next couple hours I think), I haven't given it much attention but Dean is begging people to invest on Telegram: There was an error on the investment page regarding proof of funds.
The Bitcoin cold storage address is
bc1q4tva9mh407ws98lx4snvq3fg6gedkts06yv2l3
You can verify ownership using this signature and the message "betking" without quotes
J4m3ovgH6jdsUuw2wE+X3s/ZIIDT5ODDr+PM9gE+kJs3PgvIGvMHwB+4TMiWNdUr0/lzkf6f0hJav/Z0bQvCoOk=
The invest page was showing "BetKing" with upper case letters so the signature would not have matched.
Fixed now
Just a reminder that there's 2 days left for investors to add ltc, eth or dogecoin to the bankrolls on https://beta.betking.ioIf there is 0 investment in these bankrolls on Monday then these currencies will be removed and we will only have Bitcoin play. There was some confusion with some investors thinking the beta site was a test site. It's actually there to allow investors to invest before we open play to the public. Channel with chat available. https://t.me/betkingiochat |
|
|
|
Some of those users didn't have adkinsbet avatar/sig, but where defending the site fiercely.
All of them where offline for a while and now are back.
All posting subsequently.
If I were stupid I'd say it's coincidence.
They were true shills. Many of them were wearing sigs for other casinos while not even being members of any campaign simply to appear as if they were not being paid to promote adkins bet. |
|
|
|
Will Trump be indicted ?An indictment simply means that somebody decides to make a formal accusation, and take it to court. It doesn't mean guilt or innocence. It means, Lets get to court and find out. You jokers are stupidly making so much about nothing. Even if Trump is guilty of something, his attorneys will draw it out so long, that his accusers will back off; too expensive. A federal indictment is pretty damn serious. They don't bring cases without overwhelming evidence, especially against a former president. I believe the conviction rate is close to 99%, most of which are plea deals. |
|
|
|
I expected to see low scoring match but one guy from twitter placed a bet with Bitcoin worth around 10,000 euros for Chelsea to win in Champions League match against Manchester City and he multiplied his money four times. Do we have any winners from Sportsbet 4-3 or 6-6 promotions? Next one is for international friendly match Germany vs Denmark. I just saw that I won one week ago but looks like I never used it  and free bets must settle within 72h. I've won 2 $50 freebets and a $10 free bet, been getting pretty lucky - just guessed on the eurovision one without knowing much about it at all.  |
|
|
|
Yes, thank you very much for freely offering these NBA Live Streams Stake. Moreover they seem to be available from all over the world, even in Europe I'm not a big basketball punter but those live streams really made me want to place live bets on these matches. The size of the audience and the music are really amazing, these are real shows. Maybe USA is slowly coming back to the life, because the restrictions were taken and audience are allowed to watch the games. For NBA fans who are into the home due to lockdown can now spend some time watching these live stream. In my country the scenario is worse and it takes years to watch a game reaching the stadium. Knicks home games have had some insane crowds. Almost as fun to watch as the actual game. |
|
|
|
They are awake and promoting 1xbit now  So maybe they're just sig sluts and not related directly to adkinsbet? |
|
|
|
.....
How can you remember where and when he says such things. Also how to locate I've been wondering how can I quote his other quotes from past months when he is contradicting it in his other posts.
And I will guest he will reply similar to things like this "people made mistake as I made the mistake, i must be drunk or something" something like that.
Well its quite easy if you want to quote any ridiculous post by BADecker...simply go to his post history and take your pick. Anyone will do..... OOPS.. getting off topic... my bad.... Yes, Trump will be indicted...just a matter of time. We should really start hashtagging some of the craziest things said that will surely be funny to look back on in the future, then you can just search for the hashtag. #BADeckerHOF could work Biden is a Trump puppet, who is in there to act like he is doing things against America. But he is really following Trump's orders 100% of the time.
|
|
|
|
At least one grand jury is deciding now: Prosecutor in Trump criminal probe convenes grand jury to hear evidence, weigh potential charges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-investigation-grand-jury/2021/05/25/5f47911c-bcca-11eb-83e3-0ca705a96ba4_story.htmlThe fraud he committed before becoming president is likely the least of his worries though. Cases like this seem like a great opportunity for prosecutors to get those in his inner circle to flip on him to avoid prison. Remember, if you want to cooperate with the feds and work out a deal, you gotta share everything about any potential crime. Trump needs Allen Weisselberg and Rudy to be willing to go to prison for him. |
|
|
|
also Trump: "The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!" If Trump meant the entire electoral database, he was mistaken. It was only one or several of the voting machines. However, just that one/several should be enough to void Biden out so we get a new election. Except for the whole recount, certified, litigated, relitigated, no fraud found part. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
