Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But Fauci's reliability has been brought into question here, and I thought this article to be relevant to that, at least.

But as Calm wrote at the head of this thread: "...this thread is for the impulses, rants, and hot topics I keep asking not to be posted.  I am not putting any limits on it save keep to board rules...

So, it isn't a derail. It concerns the subject of the thread, which is broad. Unless you're calling it a subthread derail. 

Yeah, but there is a problem with too many topics in one thread. To avoid confusion it makes sense to me to start a new thread if you want attention paid to a particular topic without other issues being discussed bleeding into it, causing major confusion.

Introducing a new topic into a long thread is just asking for trouble imo. My expectation was never for my threads to be the only ones discussing Covid topics. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Overweight people who contract the virus and go to the hospital. Smokers who are dying of lung cancer. Diabetics who don't control sugar levels.

If there was a free, safe, and effective two shot solution to these problems, then yes you would see people similarly condemn those that suffer from those afflictions. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gurn said:

I suspect an all or nothing approach to masks wouldn’t be received well by many

All or nothing approaches rarely work Imo unless one has huge control over the environment and the individual such as parents controlling the environment and the child…but even there it can so easily backfire once the child can start reasoning on their own and develops outside of the family relationships where they can get their needs met. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rongo said:

It appears that we have the means to effectively treat Covid now, but it is suppressed because it would interfere with the vaccine campaign

You really think hospitals that have been treating Covid patients for over a year now are clueless about these treatments that could be preventing their patients from dying?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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?

This is where I get confused. To me this reads more like promoting dumping the CDC than promoting the mask guidelines because you have mentioned so many times the difficulty in following those guidelines. 

I am trying to take into account everything you have said in the past, but you have repeated the theme of the difficulty of the mask guidelines quite a bit, so that dominates the filter I read your posts through. 
 

Does that make sense to you?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, juliann said:

Are you going to deny that Fauci told people not to wear masks because they didn't work at the start of the pandemic? Cause it won't work to say he wasn't lying, if that is where you are going, he admitted it. 

It's not as though nothing was known about masking before COVID and we are just now figuring out what works best and what doesn't.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am trying to take into account everything you have said in the past, but you have repeated the theme of the difficulty of the mask guidelines quite a bit, so that dominates the filter I read your posts through. 

Gui, you asked me earlier to find statements that led me to misunderstand your position.  I think Calm says it best. 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But Fauci's reliability has been brought into question here, and I thought this article to be relevant to that, at least.

But as Calm wrote at the head of this thread: "...this thread is for the impulses, rants, and hot topics I keep asking not to be posted.  I am not putting any limits on it save keep to board rules...

So, it isn't a derail. It concerns the subject of the thread, which is broad. Unless you're calling it a subthread derail. 

Sure, a "subthread derail" works.  It simply wasn't related to what we were talking about. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps because you don't view him as an enemy, right?  He is your political base...  An enemy of the devil (Fauci/Biden) is a friend of mine, type of thing.  Not political for you though, right?

Advice from me who has known and talked with Juliann about politics for a loooong time. Big mistake here to assume Juliann is approaching this from a political position or that she is particularly antiBiden, critical of anything he does while giving Trump or Republicans a pass. Juliann is an equal opportunity critic when it comes to politics. As long as you assume she is coming from a partisan position, you will likely misinterpret her comments.
 

I see her primary issue with Covid as not partisan at all, but all about whether or not leaders or information are accurate and honest. I believe she has made mistakes interpreting data and at times I have been confused about her points and needed to ask for clarification as she didn’t provide enough context Imo and I think she is distrustful of politicians in general (but so am I, it comes out in different ways though), but that is not because of a partisan filter. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:
6 hours ago, Chum said:

My posts here, today are careful to not target users. They are focused on where our communication seems to break down.

But you even “@“ bsjkki above so it is hard not to read that as targeting her in my view  

Quote

I said bsjkki @bsjkki's post seems to carry an untrue inference.  

Maybe it would be helpful for everyone to read their own posts and think “where is this likely to be misread”?

I resolved today to be less confrontational. My original "untrue inference" post was from yesterday. I wasn't even interested in going there today but was that quote was put before me in combination with an accusation, that spun my language into an incorrect conclusion.

In response to your criticism of my remark I ask you to consider my language. "Seems" indicates that in my opinion, there appears to be an issue. This invites examination and avoids making a flat out, non-negotiable declaration.

"Inference" is at the core of a significant issue pogi and I are trying to address. We have been discussing instances where a qualified, yet incompletely stated fact is used as part of delivering misinformation. Pogi and I independently saw language in bsjkki posts that strongly fit the form and factor of that type of propaganda. It took some time yesterday before it seemed less likely to us that that wasn't bsjkki's intent.

The @ at bsjkki was a request for her to consider our point about messaging. With it came my efforts to nudge these conversations into less combative grounds.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't see how. 

I do.  There is a trivializing tone to it, “feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet.”  It doesn’t make clear that most masks don’t protect the wearer, but will still protect others and therefore it is a good idea to wear masks in the middle of an outbreak in your area. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

This is where I get confused. To me this reads more like promoting dumping the CDC than promoting the mask guidelines because you have mentioned so many times the difficulty in following those guidelines. 

I am trying to take into account everything you have said in the past, but you have repeated the theme of the difficulty of the mask guidelines quite a bit, so that dominates the filter I read your posts through. 
 

Does that make sense to you?

OK. One more time.

I am not anti-mask. Never have been.

I am not anti-CDC/FDA whatever alphabet name. Never have been.

I am not anti-vaccine. Never have been.

I am not a science denier. Never have been.

I believe science says masks can be somewhat effective in conjunction with other measures depending on their quality and manner of usage.

I believe the CDC and other entities such as Mayo Clinic have established standard guidelines for the use of masks regardless their efficiency.

I believe the media, the government, and popular culture have done us a disservice by not promoting the best masks and best practices.

I believe the media, the government, and popular culture have done us a disservice by not following the guidelines they themselves have established by:

1. not promoting the best masks that are readily available while doing studies and promoting inferior masks such as medical and cloth

2. not actively encouraging people to use them properly

3. publicly violating the standards they expect all the rest of us to keep

4. promoting lesser quality masks and not instructing even how to use them properly

5. giving contradictory information and using scare tactics and intimidation

I believe the above hypocrisies and inconsistencies have helped create public resistance to their efforts

I believe there are simple, inexpensive, effective ways this can be improved. I have suggested some.

I don't believe the CDC should be defunded, diminished, disbanded. But if they say something that affects the performance of masks they should be heard, otherwise why do they bother?

I do believe that if we are willing to spend money and resources onp the CDC, then what they say should become the Bible for those in charge.

I do believe that the CDC guidelines could be onerous for the average Joe if the average Joe were to be held to them, which is the reason they are not mandated.

I do believe that if COVID is a life and death threat, then perhaps the government, the media, pop culture, and social media should be more concerned about proper protocols.

I believe President Nelson and the Brethren have our best interests at heart when they recommend masks and vaccination. I do both.

I am clarifying sarcasm when  it is used.

Is there anything I have left out?
 

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If there was a free, safe, and effective two shot solution to these problems, then yes you would see people similarly condemn those that suffer from those afflictions. 

Seriously? That is anti-Hippocratic Oath. Not to mention uncharitable, uncaring, and unChristian. Even in wartime scrupulous doctors try to save the lives of enemy soldiers. Then folks who didn't get vaccine would not be the equivalent of enemy soldiers, they would be worse.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Chum said:

Pogi and I independently saw language in bsjkki posts that strongly fit the form and factor of that type of propaganda. 

But valid criticism can sound identical to criticism for the sake of criticizing. When reading content from a prolific poster, it makes sense to me to consider past posts if one comes across what appears to be questionable ones. 
 

For me the answer to the question “does it make sense given bsjkki’s past posts that she would resort to buzz words and propaganda language of anti maskers/anti vaxxers?” is “no way! So maybe I am misinterpreting her and should ask for clarification before I judge”.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

But in order to understand what studies tell us, one has to look at their weaknesses as well as strengths.

Which is what pogi and I are each asking for - that a more complete equation is more regularly represented.

Routinely discussing just weaknesses w/o strengths can create a picture that is indistinguishable from misinformation. It is a challenge we have each been seeking to overcome.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This may look the same as the above if one does not take into account a poster’s other comments. 

I might need this restated differently to make sure I understand it as intended.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you understand that what you are demanding (or nothing at all

I believe we tend to make huge missteps when we start filling in gaps by assuming what the person understands. 
 

One of my pet peeves lately is the increased appearance of phrases like “but I think you know that”.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Chum said:

I resolved today to be less confrontational. My original "untrue inference" post was from yesterday. I wasn't even interested in going there today but was that quote was put before me in combination with an accusation, that spun my language into an incorrect conclusion.

In response to your criticism of my remark I ask you to consider my language. "Seems" indicates that in my opinion, there appears to be an issue. This invites examination and avoids making a flat out, non-negotiable declaration.

"Inference" is at the core of a significant issue pogi and I are trying to address. We have been discussing instances where a qualified, yet incompletely stated fact is used as part of delivering misinformation. Pogi and I independently saw language in bsjkki posts that strongly fit the form and factor of that type of propaganda. It took some time yesterday before it seemed less likely to us that that wasn't bsjkki's intent.

The @ at bsjkki was a request for her to consider our point about messaging. With it came my efforts to nudge these conversations into less combative grounds.

I think proper messaging should contain the truth and not what one epidemiologist considered 'unicorn farts.' So much of the criticism about messaging is inconsistencies or overselling. I clarified during our discussion over and over what the vaccines have been proven to do. It is what the experts are saying. Early on they focused also on herd immunity but there is a reason they no longer bring it up. You and Pogi seem to take factual studies and make it into an anti mask or anti vaccine position when it is not. Lets follow the science as we learn more. Some things we thought were correct or not correct. Some health officials have felt slow walking bad news has been helpful psychologically. I think the truth is, not being up front with 'bad news' is why we are in the position that many don't trust what they are being told. This has had major consequences for people who have vaccine hesitancy because they don't trust 'public health.'

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The last POTUS I could stand listening to for longer than 30 seconds was Reagan. Even the ones I voted for I could hardly stand. 

Truman. Also he once knocked my mom on her butt.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Chum said:

Which is what pogi and I are each asking for - that both are regularly represented. Routinely discussing one w/o the other can create a picture that is indistinguishable from misinformation . It is a challenge we have each been seeking to overcome.

I might need this restated differently to make sure I understand it as intended.

Bsjkki has posted plenty of positive studies and made positive comments about their findings, their strengths. She has also pointed out negative findings and weaknesses. Her global approach from what I have seen is to try and present the fullest and most accurate picture. Sometimes this has resulted in a steak of positive posts, sometimes a streak is negative criticisms…some of which I agree with, others I don’t. 
 

Which means if there are weaknesses, there will be criticisms from bsjkki…criticisms that may overlap with the more partisan types of criticisms. 
 

For example, one person may constantly call all dogs stupid and stupid looking because they hate dogs while another generally likes dogs, but still recognizes there are stupid dogs. In a discussion about an actual stupid dog, the one who loves dogs may end up saying the same things about that dog as the one who hates dogs…but if a reader remembers the positive comments the lover has said in the past, they will come to the correct conclusion that the particular dog is probably actually stupid and it is not that the lover is actually a hater. 
 

If bsjkki was only posting negative, critical studies or just the ones favored by a particular partisan group, it would make sense to assume she held a partisan position.  But she does not do that. And if someone disagrees with her conclusions and point out why they disagree and do it decently, I have seen her change her mind. 
 

In fact, she posts questions along with studies when they are confusing or highly technical looking for clarification.  Her views adjust when she gets new, credible info. 
 

Makes better sense now?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 9/7/2021 at 3:42 PM, pogi said:

No, that's how common folk talk too.   It "substantially reduces" hospitalizations by "preventing" many from going to the hospital at all.  It is an effective preventative measure - not an absolute guarantee.  But I think you know that wasn't implied.     

Will you also argue with people who claim that "seat belts save lives".   Will you also object that that is not absolutely true for everyone?  

Further to our discussion of how medical terminology is used, see here (from an article discussing the CDC's definition of terms) :

Quote

Here’s the “Definition of Terms” for Immunization as captured on August 26, 2021. I’ve highlighted the key points.

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

These definitions have been in place since at least May 16, 2018.

Here’s the “Definition of Terms” for immunizations now, which was updated on September 1, 2021, with changes highlighted.

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

So in a week, a vaccine went from being something that “produces immunity to a specific disease” to something that merely “stimulates the body’s immune response against diseases,” and a vaccination no longer “produces immunity” to a disease, just “protection” from a disease.

Further commentary here:

Quote

The CDC “vaccine” and “vaccination” definition changes come as vaccinated people continue to be infected and spread coronavirus. As was previously reported by National File, a new study has revealed that people who are “fully vaccinated” carry a staggering 251 times the normal viral load of COVID-19. Experts are concerned that this may pose a risk to those who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and it also seems likely these increased viral loads could result in more so-called “breakthrough” cases of those who have been vaccinated contracting COVID-19.

A study by the Oxford University Clinical Research Group published on August 10th in The Lancet found that fully vaccinated people carry 251 times the viral load of coronavirus as compared to those who have not received one of the controversial vaccines. “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020,” reads the study. The vaccines seem to allow vaccinated individuals to carry unusually high viral loads without becoming sick, transforming them into super spreaders who experience symptoms later on, as reported by Daily Veracity…” (READ MORE: Jen Psaki Calls Coronavirus The ‘ Global Plandemic’)

The definition change also comes a few weeks after the FDA seemingly approved the Pfizer vaccine just days after CDC Rochelle Walensky admitted that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines are “waning,” confirming earlier reports by National File. “We are seeing concerning evidence of waning vaccine effectiveness over time and against the Delta variant,” Rochelle Walensky said during a White House Press Briefing. “Reports from our international colleagues, including Israel, suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early.”

Input, Pogi?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

But valid criticism can sound identical to criticism for the sake of criticizing. When reading content from a prolific poster, it makes sense to me to consider past posts if one comes across what appears to be questionable ones. 

Agreed.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me the answer to the question “does it make sense given bsjkki’s past posts that she would resort to buzz words and propaganda language of anti maskers/anti vaxxers?” is “no way! So maybe I am misinterpreting her and should ask for clarification before I judge”.

Let assume I am correctly understanding her intent. Lets further assume both her integrity and the integrity of her information is above reproach (which I'd wager is a safe assumption).

Both of those assumptions still allow the following question. Is the method in which she (and others) delivering this information - is that method serving to reinforce anti-health messaging? 

Due to the rise of anti-heallth propaganda that mirrors her posting methods, I suggest it is on the table.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seriously? That is anti-Hippocratic Oath. Not to mention uncharitable, uncaring, and unChristian. Even in wartime scrupulously doctors try to save the lives of enemy soldiers. Then folks who didn't get vaccine would not be the equivalent of enemy soldiers, they would be worse.

There are a lot of uncaring people out there already as one can see by the number of fat jokes Imo.  Recognizing condemnation occurs doesn’t automatically mean one approves of it. You might want to ask Chum if he would be condemning in those cases (they vary from Covid in they are not infectious, so while they may cause harm to others, they rarely cause others to have serious illnesses or die) to that extreme. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which means if there are weaknesses, there will be criticisms from bsjkki…criticisms that may overlap with the more partisan types of criticisms. 

Understood. A half a sentence that encapsulates the overall picture can transform agenda-fuel into greater understanding.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Chum said:
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Let assume I am correctly understanding her intent. Lets further assume both her integrity and the integrity of her information is above reproach (which I'd wager is a safe assumption).

Both of those assumptions still allow the following question. Is the method in which she (and others) delivering this information - is that method serving to reinforce anti-health messaging? 

Due to the rise of anti-heallth propaganda that mirrors her posting methods, I suggest it is on the table.

I think you should start a new thread to discuss this rather than trying to address it in this thread which has so much baggage of criticisms of posters already in it. 

Link to comment

A lot of people have expressed concern about the politicization of the Covid pandemic.  Accusations are flying across the spectrum.  Advice on wearing masks, or not, etc. should ostensibly be free of political interference.  "Trust the medicine," so to speak.

But then we get stories like this:

Quote

The Biden administration tightened its masking guidance after a prominent teachers union threatened White House officials with publicly releasing harsh criticism, internal emails show.

So politicians are modifying medical guidance to placate . . . a teachers union?

Quote

The National Education Association sent a draft statement to White House officials that included harsh criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's masking guidance, the emails show. But the teachers union ultimately published a version with a much softer tone, and the CDC clarified its guidance to indicate that everyone should be masked in schools, regardless of vaccination status.

Quid pro quo.  The NEA says "Tell everyone to mask up, or else we'll rip you a new one," and the White House hops to.

Good to know that the National Education Association is dictating (or at least heavily influencing) national medical policy and guidance.  Through threats.

Quote

The new emails show further coordination between the White House and teachers unions just months after reports highlighted the extent the unions had influenced the administration's messaging on school reopenings. The watchdog group Americans for Public Trust obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request and provided them to Fox News.

The CDC announced on May 13 that fully vaccinated Americans could stop wearing masks indoors and outside, which sparked confusion about how this policy would apply to schools.

One day later, on May 14, Erika Dinkel-Smith, the White House director of labor engagement, said she stopped the NEA from releasing a critical statement that had called for immediate clarification.

"Would you know when Dr. Wolensky would be able to call NEA-Pres. Becky Pringle?" Dinkel-Smith wrote in the email. "They've gotten significant incoming and are getting targeted for a response from the media. I've gotten them to hold on their statement calling for clarification."

That same day, Dinkel-Smith received the NEA's draft statement, allowing them to weigh in on it.

"We appreciate the developing nature of the science and its implications for guidance, but releasing the guidance without accompanying school-related updates creates confusion and fuels the internal politicization of this basic health and safety issue," the draft statement read. "CDC has consistently said, and studies support, that mitigation measures, including to protect the most vulnerable, remain necessary in schools and institutions of higher education – particularly because no elementary or middle school students, and few high school students, have been vaccinated."

"This will also make it hard for school boards and leaders of institutions of higher education to do the right thing by maintaining mitigation measures," it continued. "We need CDC clarification right away."

"Clarification."

Right.

Quote

Following discussion and coordination with the Biden White House, the NEA released a statement with a much less critical tone.

The emails also show the White House and the CDC had extensive contact with union leadership.

On May 14, Dinkel-Smith asked CDC chief of staff Sherri Berger to connect NEA President Becky Pringle with the CDC director. Berger responded to the request by writing "will do" and that the CDC director was "connecting w/ Becky now."

Less than 30 minutes later, Berger sent an update saying she had spoken with Pringle and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

The next day, on May 15, the CDC updated its masking guidance to indicate that all people should wear a mask at school regardless of vaccination status. 

Is the CDC taking its marching orders from a teachers union?  It seems like it.

Quote

"This batch of emails came just weeks after we already exposed the teachers unions influenced the CDC on school openings," Americans for Public Trust Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News. "Lo and behold, less than two weeks later, they're at it again, but this time in relation to mask guidance."

The New York Post reported on emails the watchdog group obtained earlier this year showing coordination between the Biden White House and influential teachers unions on school reopenings.

In at least two instances, suggestions offered by the American Federation of Teachers were "adopted nearly verbatim" in the final text of a CDC document on reopening guidance released in February, according to the Post.

Huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...