Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

What I find very interesting is that those who have been antagonistic of masks and mandates from the very beginning are now hyper critical of those who wear imperfect masks, and criticize inconsistently executed mask mandates.

It seems to me that people are not aware that public health measures of all kinds are a blend of both hard science and psychology. This is where the basic principle of harm minimisation comes in. We absolutely know, for example, that 'any level of alcohol consumption, regardless of the amount, leads to loss of healthy life'. Many people would therefore argue that the only correct policy is to ban alcohol outright. Anything less is an admission that we're not taking the threat seriously, right? That we don't care if people die?. But of course it doesn't work like that in real life. For multiple reasons, the most effective public health measures are designed to reduce risk, not eliminate it.

Statistically, this follows a classic curve. On the left, sitting on the axis, we have no health measures and zero mitigation. The sweet spot is in the middle somewhere, where the reduction of risk is the greatest. Counterintuitively to some, past this point, as measures become more stringent, effectiveness drops off (in part -- but not exclusively -- because compliance drops off), and the curve starts descending back towards the axis.

The people who design public health measures (and I'm not talking about the politicians who talk about or enforce them) are aware of this reality and are constantly monitoring what's happening in real time, frequently tweaking what they are doing (including messaging) to try to keep outcomes within the narrowest range possible that includes the curve's maximum. This exercise is influenced by culture and politics and therefore can never be free of either. And it stubbornly avoids any kind of stasis over much more than a few days or weeks.

At every step, they are subject to howls of criticism from those who either a) don't understand the nature of the exercise or b) are seeking personal gain (including social and even psychological) by being purveyors of doubt and criticism. Speaking from very personal experience, they also know that the elected representatives who have to communicate and persuade are often very poor at this or not even invested in it themselves. What a job!

Quote

What gives me comfort is that despite imperfect compliance in the lay population, despite that a large chunk of the population refuses to abide, despite that those who try are imperfect, despite the use of some less-effective (but better than zero) fabrics, STONG evidence suggests that masks still work to reduce the burden of disease in population studies.

Indeed. One poster in particular has repeatedly reminded us of your CDC's mask handling guidelines across various threads. The same organisation has compiled compelling evidence on the use of cloth masks as a public health measure. In summary:

Quote

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry.  Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns, which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation. Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets, with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.

If we are expected to accept this organisation's guidelines for handling masks, why are we not to accept what I quoted above?

I find it striking that -- in stark contrast to many religious figures around the world -- our prophet has very carefully not sowed doubt in public health measures ... or those carrying the gargantuan task of seeking to design (and redesign!) and implement them.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[bsjkki]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if vaccinated infected still transmit the disease as much as the vaccinated as it appears from studies so far, if the infection rate of the vaccination is low enough, this can still allow us to reach herd immunity levels. 
 

I don’t remember seeing infection rates prior to the article below for the vaccinated.  Do you have studies showing these?

This was published 6 days ago, so assuming up to date and hopefully accurate  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-breakthrough-infections-vaccine-rate-symptoms-study/#app

 

I just read in the study that the risk of infection is cut in half for a vaccinated person. I also read that 63% of vaccinated cases are asymptomatic. The question I then have is if they can still spread it?

Here is another opinion on herd immunity. Delta changed the game.
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It seems to me that people are not aware that public health measures of all kinds are a blend of both hard science and psychology. This is where the basic principle of harm minimisation comes in. We absolutely know, for example, that 'any level of alcohol consumption, regardless of the amount, leads to loss of healthy life'. Many people would therefore argue that the only correct policy is to ban alcohol outright. Anything less is an admission that we're not taking the threat seriously, right? That we don't care if people die?. But of course it doesn't work like that in real life. For multiple reasons, the most effective public health measures are designed to reduce risk, not eliminate it.

Statistically, this follows a classic curve. On the left, sitting on the axis, we have no health measures and zero mitigation. The sweet spot is in the middle somewhere, where the reduction of risk is the greatest. Ironically to some, past this point, as measures become more stringent, effectiveness drops off (in part -- but not exclusively -- because compliance drops off), and the curve starts descending back towards the axis.

The people who design public health measures (and I'm not talking about the politicians who talk about or enforce them) are aware of this reality and are constantly monitoring what's happening in real time, frequently tweaking what they are doing (including messaging) to try to keep outcomes within the narrowest range possible that includes the curve's maximum. This exercise is influenced by culture and politics and therefore can never be free of either. And it stubbornly avoids any kind of stasis over much more than a few days or weeks.

At every step, they are subject to howls of criticism from those who either a) don't understand the nature of the exercise or b) are seeking personal gain (whether financial, political, or even just social)  by being purveyors of doubt and criticism. Speaking from very personal experience, they also know that the elected representatives who have to communicate and persuade are often very poor at this or not even invested in it themselves. What a job!

Indeed. We have been repeatedly treated to your CDC's mask handling guidelines across various threads. The same organisation has compiled compelling evidence on the use of cloth masks as a public health measure. In summary:

If we are expected to accept this organisation's guidelines for handling masks, why are we not to accept what I quoted above?

I find it striking that -- in stark contrast to many religious figures around the world -- our prophet has very carefully not sowed doubt in public health measures ... or those carrying the gargantuan task of seeking to design (and redesign!) and implement them.

Thanks for this input.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Tacenda

[let’s roll]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Modifying advice as knowledge is accumulated does not equal inconsistancy.

Would you agree this principle applies to spiritual matters as well?

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Would you agree this principle applies to spiritual matters as well?

I think that is a different realm with different methods for obtaining "truth."   So no not in the same way.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Teancum

[juliann]

15 hours ago, Chum said:

It seems to carry an untrue inference that vaccines aren't effective.

She never said that anymore than I ever said masks shouldn't be worn. You guys are unbelievable. 

[juliann]

16 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Seeing as we see eye to eye, its befuddling how it seemed we were not.  Thank you!

It is difficult when there is more than one person rewriting what has been said by those who don't line up with all of their thinking. This has been eye opening for me on a topic like this when there should be a special effort made to quickly get to the best information and best practices. 

[juliann]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Juliann, a lot of what I am saying is overflow from my conversation with Bernard yesterday.  It feels like every time I try to convince someone that masks work, this is where you or bernard join in the conversation against me, instead of opposing the guy claiming that masks don't work...at all, on any level, to reduce transmission.     I applaud your efforts to improve mask use.  I don't understand the antagonism against my efforts to educate someone that masks work.  The message I hear is that "my efforts are causing more harm than good".  It always seems to turn into a political criticism of imperfect efforts with you two, and smac, instead of a constructive effort to improve mask use.   I am perplexed that someone who feels so strongly about wearing masks and wearing them properly would come after me instead of the guy claiming that they don't work.   It sounds like you missed that part of the conversation, but that is precisely where Bernard came in and started engaging me in apparent defense of Mr. Anderson - with the bizarre twist that he is apparently even more extreme than me on masks.  I don't ever see you two opposing or criticizing republican efforts which are WAY more laxed on masks than any of us here. 

I hope that it is just a misunderstanding and my perception is wrong.   

"You two"? I have not discussed any of this with Gui before wandering into a message board thread. What is with the paranoia? And now you are throwing in politics just as you attempted to paint me as an anti-masker, what the heck does Republican have to do with what masks are made of and how they fit????? Do you have to be a Dem to advocate for using the most effective masks available? What the....?

[Chum]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

She never said that anymore than I ever said masks shouldn't be worn. You guys are unbelievable. 

I said @bsjkki's post seems to carry an untrue inference.  An inference conveys a message without explicitly stating it.

After lots and lots of posts, we came to believe it wasn't her intent to convey a Covid-nurturing message. However it wasn't clear at that moment.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Chum

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

An inference conveys a message without explicitly stating it.

After lots and lots of posts, we came to believe it wasn't her intent to convey a Covid-nurturing message. However it wasn't clear at that moment.

It was darn clear what she was saying from the get go.

Like I said, you guys are unbelievable. Any deviation from your pre-approved Covid-nurturing script and you rewrite what was said to mean something that was never said, to the point others are believing that those who advocate for masks are anti-maskers.  I'm not sure what you guys get out of doing that but it is starting to look like trolling.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

"You two"? I have not discussed any of this with Gui before wandering into a message board thread. What is with the paranoia? And now you are throwing in politics just as you attempted to paint me as an anti-masker, what the heck does Republican have to do with what masks are made of and how they fit????? Do you have to be a Dem to advocate for using the most effective masks available? What the....?

I am seeing a disconnect between your response here and the post from @pogi that you're responding to. It looks to me like your response doesn't directly refute his points or even clearly address them. Is it possible you aren't fully absorbing what he is saying?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

I am seeing a disconnect between your response here and the post from @pogi that you're responding to. It looks to me like your response doesn't directly refute his points or even clearly address them. Is it possible you aren't fully absorbing what he is saying?

Well don't stop now, rewrite what I said and attribute it to me. It worked before, right? 

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

It was darn clear what she was saying from the get go.

It was not to us. The reason is that the nature of this sort of dialog has changed in the last half-doz years, especially since early 2020.

Anti-health propaganda is dominating Covid discussions. One common attack vector is to deliver incomplete messages that tend to sow FUD by leveraging natural assumptions that most people are going to make.

One example is to repeatedly state the ways that masks don't work while usually leaving out how masks do indeed work and save lives.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Chum

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Seeing as we see eye to eye, its befuddling how it seemed we were not.  Thank you!

It’s been a long, complex, contentious discussion. I can see how one could get befuddled. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

It was not to us. The reason is that the nature of this sort of dialog has changed in the last half-doz years, especially since early 2020.

Anti-health propaganda is dominating Covid discussions. One common attack vector is to deliver incomplete messages that tend to sow FUD by leveraging natural assumptions that most people are going to make.

One example is to repeatedly state the ways that masks don't work while usually leaving out how masks do indeed work and save lives.

I love how a true statement supported by health officials and epidemiologists is now considered ‘anti health propaganda.’

Nice semantics in play. That’s how a Nobel prize winning drug for humans turns into a ‘horse dewormer.’ 

Please don’t take the veterinary version. But instead of saying that they mock and mislabel the drug en masse. And, then they wonder why people have trust issues.

Edited September 8, 2021 by bsjkki

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I love how true statements supported by health officials and epidemiologists is now considered ‘anti health propaganda.’

Nice semantics in play. That’s how a Nobel prize winning drug for humans turns into a ‘horse dewormer.’ 

Please don’t take the veterinary version. But instead of saying that they mock and mislabel the drug en masse. And, then they wonder why people have trust issues.

Why are you doing this? Today is a new day and I'm trying in good faith to get to the core of our communication issues. My posts here, today are careful to not target users. They are focused on where our communication seems to break down.

Gaslighting my position makes this a lot harder.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I can’t let this stand without correction since it is directed at me.

Just for the record, I have never been antagonistic towards masks or vaccines anywhere at any time unless questioning is considered an expression of antagonism.

Do let’s not start this up again, Bro Pogi.

Bernard, I hesitate to say anything after our last encouraging interaction, but until we can understand where each other is coming from and reconcile our past I don't think there is much hope for meaningful communication in the future - so I think it is worth the effort to try to understand where we are each coming from.  

To be fair, I never said anything about "vaccines", I specifically mentioned "masks" and "mandates".  While you state that you have not been antagonistic in these areas, that certainly has not been my perception of your position.  So, if I am way off base, it may be helpful for you to hear how your approach and position is being perceived.  I am confident that I am not the only one misunderstanding you if your position is not as I described. 

Also, to be fair, I never claimed that you have been an anti-masker or denied that they can (and that is the clincher for you) work.  What I hear you saying is not that they can't work with perfect obedience to the guidelines, but that the guidelines are unworkable.  I perceive your position as being antagonistic in that you have made efforts seem futile.  You have frequently posted the CDC guidelines on masks, not in an effort to educate people and encourage people to do better at following them, but to illustrate how untenable it all is - therefore rendering the masks useless unless perfection in execution can be achieved.  I don't know if this is a misunderstanding on your part, or what, but perfection is not required for masks to reduce transmission.  Perfection is untenable.  It is not realistic.  But as I said previously, I take comfort in the data which suggests that despite imperfect application, mask mandates still work to reduce transmission.  That is what the preponderance of evidence shows.    Any link you have posted has been oppositional to that fact.  One link you posted suggesting that masks can cause more harm than good (after going back and refreshing my memory of your comments) has since been retracted after review, FYI, citing that it was "misleading" and "misquotes" published papers, and that the data in the table is "unverified".   You have approached masks and mandates in a very naysaying, oppositional, and defeatist tone.

You paint a picture of an insurmountable hill.  Futility around every corner. 

You suggest in this thread that they should better enforce proper mask protocol, yet in other threads you seem to mock the futility and untenable nature of proper mask protocol.  You say "it is hard to take them seriously" when you don't see your local government leaders enforcing or practicing perfect protocol.   While I have been accused of causing more harm than good by stating that "masks work" (despite my comment being taken out of context with who and what I was responding to), I think my approach is far more helpful than yours, which truly is causing more harm than good in the American cause of masks.  I see it as antagonistic for that reason. 

This is my perception of our interaction on here - opposition around every corner.  If I am way off, I would appreciate some clarification as to where you truly stand.  Not once have I ever seen you defend me against people who claim that masks don't work.  You typically join in their defense against me.  That is my experience that I cannot deny.  There are pages and pages of it for people to review if they so wish. 

Bernard, do you honestly not have any problem with mask mandates (except that they are not consistent)? I'm right in that at least...right?  You don't really want consistent mandates across the board do you? 

 

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, Chum said:

Why are you doing this? Today is a new day and I'm trying in good faith to get to the core of our communication issues. My posts here, today are careful to not target users. They are focused on where our communication seems to break down.

Gaslighting my position makes this a lot harder.

You directly referenced my statement. I can respond. 

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I love how a true statement supported by health officials and epidemiologists is now considered ‘anti health propaganda.’

Nice semantics in play. That’s how a Nobel prize winning drug for humans turns into a ‘horse dewormer.’ 

Please don’t take the veterinary version. But instead of saying that they mock and mislabel the drug en masse. And, then they wonder why people have trust issues.

It's been interesting to me to see the opposite side of the coin to the "anti-vaxxer/anti-masker" hysteria portrayed by the media and by those who focus solely on mitigation and vaccination: contempt, hysteria, and rage against any and all therapeutics on the part of pro-vaxxers/pro-maskers. They want vaccination and masking to be the sole approach, at the expense of all other approaches (including living with it and improving track records on healing and recovery for those hard hit by it). Some haven't been the Holy Grail (quinine derivatives), and many haven't worked, but there are some effective therapeutics that are being purposely deemphasized and underutilized. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-monoclonal-abbott/2021/08/19/a39a0b5e-0029-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html

Free, widely available (if the government chose to devote emphasis and resources to it), and at least 70-80% effective in drastically improving Covid in hospitalized Covid patients, monoclonal antibody infusions are deemphasized by the media, CDC, et al because it would dampen enthusiasm for the vaccines and boosters. Vaccine fanatics don't appear to want effective treatments, because they want to force everyone to get vaccines as the sole tactic in this (well, that and lockdowns and masks). 

Why aren't we hearing more about monoclonal antibodies from the media and government? 

https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distribution

I think it's because President Trump received the treatment, so it's treated like it's hydroxychloroquine or injecting bleach.

 

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You directly referenced my statement. I can respond. 

I never doubted your ability respond. I struggle that this response largely ignores what you quoted from me.

Are you willing to narrowly and directly consider the communication issues that @pogi and I have been referencing? If it's a hard no, we can acknowledge that discussing this topic is off the table and move on.

[Bob Crockett]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's been interesting to me to see the opposite side of the coin to the "anti-vaxxer/anti-masker" hysteria portrayed by the media and by those who focus solely on mitigation and vaccination: contempt, hysteria, and rage against any and all therapeutics on the part of pro-vaxxers/pro-maskers. They want vaccination and masking to be the sole approach, at the expense of all other approaches (including living with it and improving track records on healing and recovery for those hard hit by it). Some haven't been the Holy Grail (quinine derivatives), and many haven't worked, but there are some effective therapeutics that are being purposely deemphasized and underutilized. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-monoclonal-abbott/2021/08/19/a39a0b5e-0029-11ec-a664-4f6de3e17ff0_story.html

Free, widely available (if the government chose to devote emphasis and resources to it), and at least 70-80% effective in drastically improving Covid in hospitalized Covid patients, monoclonal antibody infusions are deemphasized by the media, CDC, et al because it would dampen enthusiasm for the vaccines and boosters. Vaccine fanatics don't appear to want effective treatments, because they want to force everyone to get vaccines as the sole tactic in this (well, that and lockdowns and masks). 

Why aren't we hearing more about monoclonal antibodies from the media and government? 

https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distribution

I think it's because President Trump received the treatment, so it's treated like it's hydroxychloroquine or injecting bleach.

 

I think the answer is that the transactional risk and burden of getting a vaccine vastly outweighs the risk, and the arguments against vaccine are founded in politics and not statistical (as opposed to anecdotal "science") science. 

Do you make the same argument against the polio vaccine?  If so, how could you have possibly been educated in any U.S. elementary school and have possibly obtained a passport (or rather, a visa)?  After all, the polio vaccine has the same kinds of anecdotal risk -- paralysis and death.

I do have a woman friend in the church who is a dedicated opponent to any kind of vaccine for her children, and she spends a lot of time navigating the hurdles to get her four children educated.  Are you that kind of opponent?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bernard, I hesitate to say anything after our last encouraging interaction, but until we can understand where each other is coming from and reconcile our past I don't think there is much hope for meaningful communication in the future - so I think it is worth the effort to try to understand where we are each coming from.  

To be fair, I never said anything about "vaccines", I specifically mentioned "masks" and "mandates".  While you state that you have not been antagonistic in these areas, that certainly has not been my perception of your position.  So, if I am way off base, it may be helpful for you to hear how your approach and position is being perceived.  I am confident that I am not the only one misunderstanding you if your position is not as I described. 

Also, to be fair, I never claimed that you have been an anti-masker or denied that they can (and that is the clincher for you) work.  What I hear you saying is not that they can't work with perfect obedience to the guidelines, but that the guidelines are unworkable.  I perceive your position as being antagonistic in that you have made efforts seem futile.  You have frequently posted the CDC guidelines on masks, not in an effort to educate people and encourage people to do better at following them, but to illustrate how untenable it all is - therefore rendering the masks useless unless perfection in execution can be achieved.  I don't know if this is a misunderstanding on your part, or what, but perfection is not required for masks to reduce transmission.  Perfection is untenable.  It is not realistic.  But as I said previously, I take comfort in the data which suggests that despite imperfect application, mask mandates still work to reduce transmission.  That is what the preponderance of evidence shows.    Any link you have posted has been oppositional to that fact.  One link you posted suggesting that masks can cause more harm than good (after going back and refreshing my memory of your comments) has since been retracted after review, FYI, citing that it was "misleading" and "misquotes" published papers, and that the data in the table is "unverified".   You have approached masks and mandates in a very naysaying, oppositional, and defeatist tone.

You paint a picture of an insurmountable hill.  Futility around every corner. 

You suggest in this thread that they should better enforce proper mask protocol, yet in other threads you seem to mock the futility and untenable nature of proper mask protocol.  You say "it is hard to take them seriously" when you don't see your local government leaders enforcing or practicing perfect protocol.   While I have been accused of causing more harm than good by stating that "masks work" (despite my comment being taken out of context with who and what I was responding to), I think my approach is far more helpful than yours, which truly is causing more harm than good in the American cause of masks.  I see it as antagonistic for that reason. 

This is my perception of our interaction on here - opposition around every corner.  If I am way off, I would appreciate some clarification as to where you truly stand.  Not once have I ever seen you defend me against people who claim that masks don't work.  You typically join in their defense against me.  That is my experience that I cannot deny.  There are pages and pages of it for people to review if they so wish. 

Bernard, do you honestly not have any problem with mask mandates (except that they are not consistent)? I'm right in that at least...right?  You don't really want consistent mandates across the board do you? 

 

So, to be fair, after I smoked the peace pipe (I don''t recall you inhaling with me, but maybe I missed it) you call me out twice now. Interesting.

Yes, you are way off base in so many ways and have indulged in wrong perceptions. I have clarified my position a number of times. Maybe you missed those.

No, I have not insisted on perfection. Nope. Just implementation of the best practices. That is not unreasonable or unattainable.

No, I have not made every effort seem futile nor have I painted a picture of an insurmountable hill with futility under every rock. I have made concrete proposals that I believe would  help the situation and that are easily doable, inexpensive, and reasonable. Perhaps you missed those.

Yes, it is hard to take authorities seriously when they give mixed and confusing messages and recklessly flaunt the very recommendations and mandates they make. They are like trumpeters on the wall who play an uncertain call.

It's ok that you think your approach is superior to mine. I don't mind that at all. I wasn't aware that my call for more clarity, consistency, and common sense is rippling in such powerful fashion across the Fruited Plains. Do you have a source for that? Seems to me that the government, media, and celebrities would be doing a good thing by following their own guidelines and mandates, but apparently you think that is not necessary. OK. 

Do I honestly have problems with masked mandates except that they are not consistent? Haven't I made that crystal clear? Unless you think I am being dishonest. 

I don't really want consistent mandates across the board? I have no idea what this means.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think the answer is that the transactional risk and burden of getting a vaccine vastly outweighs the risk, and the arguments against vaccine are founded in politics and not statistical (as opposed to anecdotal "science") science. 

Outweighs natural immunity, and possible monoclonal antibody treatment (which is free)? The Washington Post article quotes multiple doctors saying that it is a game changer that would allow most hospitalized Covid patient to quickly and completely recover from it. 

I'm not terrified of possible vaccine effects, but I also don't want a vaccine for every malady just because we can develop them. Some things we can go ahead and catch and let our immune systems calibrate and work. 

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you make the same argument against the polio vaccine?  If so, how could you have possibly been educated in any U.S. elementary school and have possibly obtained a passport?  After all, the polio vaccine has the same kinds of anecdotal risk -- paralysis and death.

No, polio is vastly more potentially dangerous than Covid is, or chicken pox, or a slew of other routine vaccines we have now (especially for the young and healthy). I don't think comparing polio to Covid is apt. 

If smallpox were a threat now, I would gladly get a smallpox vaccine, too. It appears that we have the means to effectively treat Covid now, but it is suppressed because it would interfere with the vaccine campaign. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by rongo

[Bob Crockett]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Outweighs natural immunity, and possible monoclonal antibody treatment (which is free)? The Washington Post article quotes multiple doctors saying that it is a game changer that would allow most hospitalized Covid patient to quickly and completely recover from it. 

I'm not terrified of possible vaccine effects, but I also don't want a vaccine for every malady just because we can develop them. Some things we can go ahead and catch and let our immune systems calibrate and work. 

No, polio is vastly more potentially dangerous than Covid is, or chicken pox, or a slew of other routine vaccines we have now (especially for the young and healthy). I don't think comparing polio to Covid is apt. 

If smallpox were a threat now, I would gladly get a smallpox vaccine, too. It appears that we have the means to effectively treat Covid now, but it is suppressed because it would interfere with the vaccine campaign. 

I'm more interested in statistical science rather than what "multiple doctors" are saying.  Do you have any published reports based on statistical science which say that the COVID vaccines pose an unacceptable risk?  (There aren't any.)  Do you even know what statistical science might be?

I accept the proposition that contracting Covid leads to better immunity than obtaining a vaccine, but reliance upon that argument would read out of public health the need to ever obtain a vaccine. I fully accept the proposition that public health officials are, in huge part, boneheaded nincompoops, but private industry is behind the vaccines.  

I'm also fascinated to see that the anti-vax crusade seems to be coming from the pro-Trump right.  I wonder why that might be.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

It is difficult when there is more than one person rewriting what has been said by those who don't line up with all of their thinking. This has been eye opening for me on a topic like this when there should be a special effort made to quickly get to the best information and best practices. 

I have appealed to the CDC mask guidelines and reproduced them here several times without effect. If they are not the Gold Standard, than why do we bother funding them?