Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I wish no one did. 

It’s the price we pay for living. Someone is going to be our boss and someone else will want to be their boss. Whatever the system. Even God has to deal with it.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Again with the goal post moving. They are following cdc guidelines for the show. I don’t watch Kimmel, but to be in the audience you have to be vaccinated and masked (and they are specific about what type of face mask is appropriate). 
 

Sounds much safer than walking into an LDS chapel - that’s for sure. 

My goalposts have been firmly in place from the start. You can check a post above for the record. I don’t know how to insert links.

And you will note that I specifically said “even if they are vaccinated and masked.” The science backs this up. That they would go ahead is evidence they don’t take this seriously. 

No one is cheering and guffawing at morbid jokes in LDS chapels. 🙃alert. Well, maybe in Elders Quorum meetings. End 🙃alert.

A year ago we were told to cancel Labor Day festivities and travel. This year it’s three times worse. Why defend this if we are in a life or death struggle?

Seems to me the CDC event guidelines recommend great caution with public events. With heightened infection and death rates, prudence would suggested an abundance of caution.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-for-events-gatherings.html

  • Behavior of attendees during an event— Events where people engage in behaviors such as interacting with others from outside their own household, singing, shouting, not maintaining physical distancing, or not wearing masks consistently and correctly, can increase risk.
  • If you do gather with people who don’t live with you, gatherings and activities held outdoors are safer than indoor gatherings.
  • Choose events that take place outside with enough space for attendees to stay at least six feet apart.
Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My goalposts have been firmly in place from the start. You can check a post above for the record. I don’t know how to insert links.

And you will note that I specifically said “even if they are vaccinated and masked.” The science backs this up. That they would go ahead is evidence they don’t take this seriously. 

No one is cheering and guffawing at morbid jokes in LDS chapels. 🙃alert. Well, maybe in Elders Quorum meetings. End 🙃alert.

I don't know what's hard to understand. It seems like you think there are only two proper responses to this pandemic. If you take it seriously, you will lock yourself in a room with no human contact for the rest of your life. Anything less than that and you are basically doing no better than those that have not gotten vaccinated and purposefully hold no mask parties.

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A year ago we were told to cancel Labor Day festivities and travel. This year it’s three times worse. 

Indeed, except we have a vaccine this year, no? Right now we have a hospital epidemic because of people making the stupid decision not to vaccinate. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't know what's hard to understand. It seems like you think there are only two proper responses to this pandemic. If you take it seriously, you will lock yourself in a room with no human contact for the rest of your life. Anything less than that and you are basically doing no better than those that have not gotten vaccinated and purposefully hold no mask parties.

Your words, not mine. Please don’t misrepresent me. Locking yourself in a room is tad different than going to a “comedian’s” grand reopening celebration at the height of a serious pandemic. Oh wait! They are free to make their own choices. 🙃So if they get COVID at this super-spreader they should just shut up and die. That’s Kimmel’s solution.🙃

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed, except we have a vaccine this year, no? Right now we have a hospital epidemic because of people making the stupid decision not to vaccinate. 

Except many folks like my son who were vaccinated and wear masks are getting sick. More so now with Mu making it’s appearance. That’s the science.

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

Your words, not mine. Please don’t misrepresent me. Locking yourself in a room is tad different than going to a “comedian’s” grand reopening celebration at the height of a serious pandemic. Oh wait! They are free to make their own choices. 🙃So if they get COVID at this super-spreader they should just shut up and die. That’s Kimmel’s solution.🙃

Except many folks like my son who were vaccinated and wear masks are getting sick. More so now with Mu making it’s appearance. That’s the science.

Yes vaccinated people are getting sick. Some are going to the hospital and some are even dying. The vaccines aren't preventing everyone from getting Delta, and as you say Mu is making an appearance. So as a vaccinated individual, I know I'm going to get Covid at some point. It doesn't matter how much I distance, mask, go in crowded places or not, at some point I will likely contract this disease. But here's the thing. That really isn't a problem. People get sick all the time. It's only a problem if our healthcare system can't handle the influx and vaccines reduce the burden on the health care system by orders of magnitude. 

So why is there is a problem right now? Our hospitals are full to overflowing. What is the source of this? People making the stupid choice not to vaccinate. As Jimmy Kimmel points out, people who have heart attacks are having trouble getting care. Why? Because people aren't vaccinated. Do they deserve to die? No. Jimmie didn't even say anything close to that. He said that if hospitals are full, and people are going to die because there isn't enough care to go around, he'd choose the people that chose to put themselves in that situtation.

Feel free to have the last word.   

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do they deserve to die? No. Jimmie didn't even say anything close to that. He said that if hospitals are full, and people are going to die because there isn't enough care to go around, he'd choose the people that chose to put themselves in that situation.

Feel free to have the last word.   

I agree with Jimmy.  We all make our choices and the consequences follow.  

Link to comment
On 9/7/2021 at 11:07 AM, Chum said:

Hey it's Robert. Hi Robert!

You won't get pushback from me about it.  The local news station that originated that story doesn't seem to have contacted the hospital to verify the story.  RS certainly didn't verify the story before publishing.

This was careless, sloppy, unthinking journalism - something that drives me up a wall. I'm beyond frustrated by news orgs who republish press releases from LEO/govs/Biz w/o vetting the info (AT ALL) or including relevant historical context.

Seems the AP did the same thing:  https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/another-ivermectin-story-and-false-reporting-this-time-by-ap/

I wonder if this story will meet the same fate? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/ivermectin-poison-control-calls-triple-in-washington-despite-multiple-warnings-against-use-for-covid-19-treatment/

What do you think is going on here?  I would think that people would hail any possible treatment as a good thing.  Instead we get these fake news stories, breathlessly pushed by the media.  First Hydroxychloroquin was demonized, now ivermectin.  Can't the vaccines take a little competition?

Perhaps the dismal record has something to do with it.  The third shot isn't working in Israel.  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/311368 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

What do you think is going on here?  I would think that people would hail any possible treatment as a good thing.  Instead we get these fake news stories, breathlessly pushed by the media.  First Hydroxychloroquin was demonized, now ivermectin.  Can't the vaccines take a little competition?

Just a quick chime in to say...

No competition.  Its apples and oranges.   Ivermectin is not intended for daily long-term use as a prophylactic for the rest of your life.  It is better used as a short-term treatment.  Even if it was used for long-term prophylaxis, lets compare and contrast the two and see if Ivermectin could give reasonable competition to the vaccine. 

Duration of efficacy:  Vaccine give around 8 months+ of protection.  Ivermecin has a half-life of 18 hours.   That means that you will be taking one pill every. single. day. with no end in site, vs 2 shots as an initial dose, and single shot booster close to annually after that.  

Price: Vaccine is free.  Ivermectin will cost you close to $100 retail price for 20 pills.  - that's why everyone is using the $5 horse medicine (not intended for human use) that is sending them to the hospital.   To cover 8 months, that will cost you around $1,215.  This thing ain't going away any time soon, so plan on taking that pill daily and paying that cost for the unforeseeable future.  

Efficacy: Vaccine is around 60%+ effective against Delta, and much more effective than that at reducing severity of disease.  Ivermectin "more research needed" is what every study I have seen has said, but does show some potential promise as a treatment but with some conflicting results.  They are used for totally different things.  You can't really compare them.  

Side effects: both pretty mild/moderate with rare serious side effects including anaphylaxis (unless you are self-medicating with the horse medicine, then side effects and hospitalizations sky rocket).  The difference is that the side effects of the vaccine typically only last a few days, the side effects of the medicine will happen every single day you take it - it is potentially ongoing, nonstop.  If we compare hospitalizations due to vaccination vs hospitalizations due to self-medicating with Ivermectin...it gets kind of ridiculous.  I don't think it has been studied what kind of effect Ivermectin has on your gut microbiome.  Based on what it does to parasites and viruses, I would guess it is not the best thing for your gut microbes, long term - just a hunch.

Is there any competition?  No, not really.  The medical field would welcome a more effective, and cost effective/safe way to prevent Covid though...any ideas? Even if Ivermectin was used as a long-term daily prophylactic no one would use it due to inconvenience of taking a daily pill and cost alone.    

But, lets hope it is proven to be an effective tool for treatment.  That would be great.

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Perhaps the dismal record has something to do with it.  The third shot isn't working in Israel.  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/311368 

Dismal record?  Have you been in a hospital lately?  It is filled with unvaccinated people, and Ivermectin poisonings are up 500%+, further burdening hospitals. 

The third shot isn't working?  More than 422,000 people have received the third dose and only 12 cases of Covid reported from those. All 12 of these were diagnosed 7 days after getting the shot.  That is important to note because the incubation period for Covid is up to 2 weeks.  In other words, they may have been infected before even getting the shot.  The second important thing to note is that it takes up to 2 weeks for the vaccine to build up full efficacy.  In other words, they were diagnosed before the vaccine had a chance to reach full efficacy.  Way too premature to say if it is working or not..  Antibody studies show that it should boost immunity pretty good.           

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just a quick chime in to say...

No competition.  Its apples and oranges.   Ivermectin is not intended for daily long-term use as a prophylactic.  It is a short-term treatment.  Even if it was used for long-term prophylaxis, lets compare and contrast the two and see if Ivermectin could give reasonable competition to the vaccine. 

Duration of efficacy:  Vaccine give around 8 months+ of protection.  Ivermecin has a half-life of 18 hours.   That means that you will be taking one pill every. single. day. for 8 months, vs 2 shots as an initial dose, and single shot booster close to annually after that.   Price: Vaccine is free.  Ivermectin will cost you close to $100 retail price for 20 pills.  - that's why everyone is using the $5 horse medicine (not intended for human use) that is sending them to the hospital.   To cover 8 months, that will cost you around $1,215.  This thing ain't going away any time soon, so plan on taking that pill daily and paying that cost for the unforeseeable future.  

Efficacy: Vaccine is proven to be 60%+ effective, and much more effective that that at reducing severity of disease.  Ivermectin "more research needed" is what every study I have seen has said, but does show some potential promise as a treatment but with some conflicting results.  They are used for totally different things.  You can't really compare them.  

Side effects: both pretty mild/moderate with rare serious side effects including anaphylaxis (unless you are self-medicating with the horse medicine, then side effects and hospitalizations sky rocket).  The difference is that the side effects of the vaccine typically only last a few days, the side effects of the medicine will happen every single day you take it - it is potentially ongoing, nonstop.  If we compare hospitalizations due vaccination vs hospitalizations due to self-medicating with Ivermectin...it gets kind of ridiculous. 

Is there any competition?  No, not really.  Even if Ivermectin was used as a long-term daily prophylactic no one would use it due to inconvenience of taking a daily pill and cost alone.    

But, lets hope it is proven to be an effective tool for treatment.  That would be great.

Dismal record?  Have you been in a hospital lately?  It is filled with unvaccinated people and Ivermectin poisonings. 

The third shot isn't working?  More than 422,000 people have received the third dose and only 12 cases of Covid reported from those. All 12 of these were diagnosed 7 days after getting the shot.  That is important to note because the incubation period for Covid is up to 2 weeks.  In other words, the may have been infected before even getting the shot.  The second important thing to note is that it takes up to 2 weeks for the vaccine to build up full efficacy.  In other words, they were diagnosed before the vaccine had a chance to reach full efficacy.  Way too premature to say if it is working or not.  Antibody studies show that it should boost immunity pretty good.           

 

The first two shots worked and so we need a third and perhaps a fourth because the first two were so effective? https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/israels-grim-covid-data-suggests-vaccines-alone-wont-stop-pandemic/ar-AANJIxp

You know we wouldn't be having this conversation if the vaccines stopped the spread better and worked better.  Natural immunity still outshines what Pharma can do.  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/312538  Maybe exposure is the answer and stopping the prevention of doctors trying different treatments for those who contract the illness?

Do you have any data on who is actually getting really sick?  Is it still primarily the aged and people with other health problems?  Also, we still use the questionable PCR test and so how do we really know if the flu isn't coming back?

And this is my main question:  Why the resistance to other treatments?  You are too ready to jump on the stories about how billybob in MS overdosed on horsepaste (turned out to be an exaggerated, media hyped story).  Theoretically, if there are treatments that work, but aren't called vaccines, would you support them?  What if the treatments were so effective that the vaccine was rendered unnecessary.  Would you still support the non-vaccine treatments?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Have you been in a hospital lately?

https://data.jconline.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/facility/intermountain-medical-center/460010/

The data don't seem to back the over capacity narrative.

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ivermectin poisonings are up 500%

Could you supply the data on this?  Also, if this is the case, perhaps allowing doctors to prescribe it would solve the problem?  We rushed the vaccine to market, yet are slow walking anything non-vaccine related.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

The first two shots worked and so we need a third and perhaps a fourth because the first two were so effective? 

Yes.   Its not unlike other effective vaccines who's immunity wanes over time and requires boosters.  This is not shocking news in the vaccine world.

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

You know we wouldn't be having this conversation if the vaccines stopped the spread better and worked better.  

True. And?

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Natural immunity still outshines what Pharma can do. 

That's what these guys unfortunately said too.  It is actually very sad:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/29/3rd-conservative-radio-host-who-condemned-vaccines-dies-of-covid-1390555

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Maybe exposure is the answer and stopping the prevention of doctors trying different treatments for those who contract the illness?

So, we are all just guinea pigs as we are struggling for air?  Sounds awesome!  Maybe we should revolutionize medicine based on that concept and see what happens.

Exposure isn't going to stop the pandemic either.  Look at measles, for example.  Natural immunity from measles is stronger than the vaccine, just like with Covid.  Measles is also WAY more infectious than even Delta, and yet it remained endemic forever and never really went away.   Same with small pox.  I wouldn't look to natural immunity alone to end this thing.   So far, we don't have a tool that will end it.  Count on it being endemic - vaccine or not.  Vaccines will help reduce suffering in the mean time. 

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Do you have any data on who is actually getting really sick?  Is it still primarily the aged and people with other health problems? 

Not really.  All the old people and high-risk individuals were vaccinated.  It is the young and healthy primarily filling the hospitals now  https://www.wesh.com/article/you-are-at-risk-i-promise-you-doctors-say-florida-hospitals-filling-with-young-unvaccinated-people/37211833

Quote

According to the recent CDC data, in the week ending July 24, people ages 18 to 49 are the largest demographic hospitalized for COVID-19.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-biggest-group-of-newly-hospitalized-covid-19-patients#Younger-people-most-affected

 

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

And this is my main question:  Why the resistance to other treatments?  You are too ready to jump on the stories about how billybob in MS overdosed on horsepaste (turned out to be an exaggerated, media hyped story).

I think I distinctly remember saying that "I hope it works".  

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Theoretically, if there are treatments that work, but aren't called vaccines, would you support them?  What if the treatments were so effective that the vaccine was rendered unnecessary.  Would you still support the non-vaccine treatments?

You don't seem to understand what I am saying.  Treatments and vaccines (prophylaxis) do not compete against each other.  They should be used in tandem.  There is no competition.  If there was an effective prophylaxis that is not a vaccine, that was proven to be safe, cost effective, and non-burdensome (taking a pill everyday for the rest of your life, for example), I would welcome it with open arms and shout Hallelujah! 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Actually, yes it does.  There is a difference between bed capacity and functional capacity.   This is not just happening in Utah, either.  

24 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Could you supply the data on this?  Also, if this is the case, perhaps allowing doctors to prescribe it would solve the problem?  

I already have.  If you are not going to read the thread, I am not going to be your goffer and go find it for you.   Yes, allowing doctors to prescribe it would largely solve the problem of overdosing.  I am confused though, are you still suggesting that we should use Ivermectin as a prophylactic against Covid?  You think that is cost effective?  There is a reason people are using the non doctor prescribed horse medicine - it is cheap! 

 

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

Actually, yes it does.  There is a difference between bed capacity and functional capacity.   This is not just happening in Utah, either.  

I already have.  If you are not going to read the thread, I am not going to be your goffer and go find it for you.   Yes, allowing doctors to prescribe it would largely solve the problem of overdosing.  I am confused though, are you still suggesting that we should use Ivermectin as a prophylactic against Covid?  You think that is cost effective?  There is a reason people are using the non doctor prescribed horse medicine - it is cheap! 

 

You can't simply provide it again?  My guess is that it is based on the discredited AP and Rolling Stone hysteria and that is why you are shying away from this.  I don't get why you are digging in your heals on this discredited narrative, if that is the case.

I don't know about using ivermectin as a prophylactic.  I'm not a doctor.  But why not try it out on willing patients?  There are experts like Dr. Bret Weinstein who are using it as a prophylactic.  Why not have a big study on this and other possible remedies?  We did this for the vaccine and approved Pfizer's in record time.  Why not do the same thing for ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or other repurposed drugs?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes.   Its not unlike other effective vaccines who's immunity wanes over time and requires boosters.  This is not shocking news in the vaccine world.

True. And?

That's what these guys said too:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/29/3rd-conservative-radio-host-who-condemned-vaccines-dies-of-covid-1390555

So, we are all just guinea pigs as we are struggling for air?  Sounds awesome!  Maybe we should revolutionize medicine based on that concept and see what happens.

Exposure isn't going to stop the pandemic either.  Look at measles, for example.  Natural immunity from measles is stronger than the vaccine, just like with Covid.  Measles is also WAY more infectious than even Delta, and yet it remained endemic forever and never really went away.   Same with small pox.  I wouldn't look to natural immunity alone to end this thing.   So far, we don't have a tool that will end it.  Count on it being endemic - vaccine or not.  Vaccines will help reduce suffering in the mean time. 

Not really.  All the old people and high-risk individuals were vaccinated.  It is the young and healthy primarily filling the hospitals now  https://www.wesh.com/article/you-are-at-risk-i-promise-you-doctors-say-florida-hospitals-filling-with-young-unvaccinated-people/37211833

 

I think I distinctly remember saying that "I hope it works".  

You don't seem to understand what I am saying.  Treatments and vaccines (prophylaxis) do not compete against each other.  They should be used in tandem.  There is no competition.  If there was an effective prophylaxis that is not a vaccine, that was proven to be safe, cost effective, and non-burdensome (taking a pill everyday for the rest of your life, for example), I would welcome it with open arms and shout Hallelujah! 

 

Tell that to the breathless media that are too busy to fact-check the stories they do or spread on social media about ivermectin. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

The first two shots worked and so we need a third and perhaps a fourth because the first two were so effective? https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/israels-grim-covid-data-suggests-vaccines-alone-wont-stop-pandemic/ar-AANJIxp

You know we wouldn't be having this conversation if the vaccines stopped the spread better and worked better.  Natural immunity still outshines what Pharma can do.  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/312538  Maybe exposure is the answer and stopping the prevention of doctors trying different treatments for those who contract the illness?

1.) they're still working, even if their effectiveness wares a little over time and most governments implementing a booster are doing so in part because of that and in part for a sense of trying to stay ahead of the variants. 

2.) most of us would be having a very different conversation if there wasn't a solid minority of people who refuse vaccination and there was widespread vaccination across the world and children under 12 were also able to be vaccinated. 

Quote

Do you have any data on who is actually getting really sick?  Is it still primarily the aged and people with other health problems?  Also, we still use the questionable PCR test and so how do we really know if the flu isn't coming back?

And this is my main question:  Why the resistance to other treatments?  You are too ready to jump on the stories about how billybob in MS overdosed on horsepaste (turned out to be an exaggerated, media hyped story).  Theoretically, if there are treatments that work, but aren't called vaccines, would you support them?  What if the treatments were so effective that the vaccine was rendered unnecessary.  Would you still support the non-vaccine treatments?

It's no longer primarily the aged. It's now primarily those between the ages of 18-49. The average age has been creeping down for 2 reasons. 1) delta has more of a serious effect than alpha on younger cohorts. 2) most older cohorts are vaccinated. You can google this. It shows on varying state sites and news articles like these ones:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-biggest-group-of-newly-hospitalized-covid-19-patients

https://ctmirror.org/2021/08/10/covid-hospitalizations-skew-younger-as-delta-variant-spreads-in-ct/

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/2021/08/23/covid-19-attack-rates-by-vaccination-status-and-age/

 

The first one also notes this: "Experts say that initially a person’s age and underlying conditions were the biggest factors for if a person would need to be hospitalized, but now it’s vaccine status."

 

On resistance, I can't answer pogi on this, but I'll answer for myself. I have 2 reasons to "resistance" to treatments. 

1. Do you know that HIV at this point has become a pretty manageable disease that with treatment can be managed for years. If a vaccine for HIV was presented though, I would start really pushing and promoting that, particularly in at risk communities or regions with high HIV rates. Why? I would assume it would be obvious: it's better to never contract the disease than to have a regime to manage it. We currently have regimes to reduce the death rate in hospitals for covid. It's far less effective than the HIV example I gave you (meaning it leaves a lot of people still dead and/or with long term illness...like my step father who now has diabete from covid and can't smell 8 months after getting it). But it also runs into other problems like access, capacity to implement, access to earlier interventions, etc And in our current state where it's farrrr more communicable than HIV, it can quickly strain hospital staffs (yes, i saw your earlier numbers with UT....UT is not as strained as say ID and it also is still starting to stretch staff, if the nurse I talked to during a recent mild hospital stay I had is any indication...as well as plenty other medical staff saying likewise). In which case access and capacity decreases and the death rate raises from a preventable disease not just for those who have it but for those whose treatments for other ailments are delayed due to staff and bed shortages (this is happening/happened recently in several especially hit states). In no world is treatment better than vaccinating/prevention for any known disease....and that goes ESPECIALLY for viruses where our treatments usually focus managing symptoms.

2.) ivermectin is not on the list of effective treatments for covid because the research on it is not showing promise and it sure as heck shouldn't be personally administered without a prescription.

With luv,

BD   

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

What do you think is going on here?  I would think that people would hail any possible treatment as a good thing.  Instead we get these fake news stories, breathlessly pushed by the media.  First Hydroxychloroquin was demonized, now ivermectin.  Can't the vaccines take a little competition?

Yes the vccine can if the other treatments have been tested as thoroughly and shown to be effective.  Which neither have.  But go drink horse dewormer if you want.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to my posts, particularly since I have repeatedly said that I support the general ideas of masking, social distancing and vaccinations.

You seem to be dialed in solely on the medical aspects.  Fine.  I'm generally on board with what the CDC has recommended, and with what the Brethren have encouraged.  

But there's more to the story than that.  I think we can and ought to discuss instances where medical decisions/guidance are being affected by non-medical considerations.

If the CDC - an organ of the government - is quietly but substantially re-defining terms relevant to the pandemic, I think that merits some attention and discussion.

When the White House seems to be tailoring public guidance and policy about the pandemic to suit the preferences of teachers unions, I think that merits some attention and discussion.

I too want "what is best for the community."  Metaphorically speaking, we are both looking at the Covid "forest" and agree that it needs to be managed to prevent or reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfires.  We also seem to agree broadly as to the general means whereby such management is undertaken.  

I guess we differ in that you repose more trust in the competency and integrity of those carrying out these measures than I do.  There are still others who disagree completely with these measures.  While I disagree with them generally, I also see that they are raising some fair points about the particulars.

I am not your enemy, but I feel I have the right to express reservations and concerns about these things.  I am generally on board with masks, but I have some concerns about "noble lies" told about them, and about the far-reaching ramifications of some aspects of mask mandates.  I am generally on board with vaccines, but I have some concerns about the far-reaching ramifications of vaccine passports.  And I think sneering / nasty / condescending rhetoric against the "vaccine hesitant" folks is both unseemly and counterproductive.  I think we should focus on persuading more than coercing.  I am concerned about precedents being set that will allow the government to continuously invoke emergent circumstances as a basis for asserting even more power over civil liberties than it has now.  The Star Wars prequels were not intended as a "how to" guide.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am hostile to your posts because they are largely speculative and clearly slanted, and quite honestly pretty ridiculous most of the time (yes, I realize that is subjective).  My tone (which you frequently get after me for) is largely reflective of the tone of your articles - dismissive, divisive, and contentious.  Whenever I point this out to you, you always hide behind the post and say "that is not my voice - I don't necessarily condone their tone or message".   If you want me to step up smac, you need to do the same.  Don't post rubbish and expect rubies in return.  

The problem with your approach to politics and policy is that 90% of it is speculative.  I hate that.  I can't do anything with it.  It doesn't help any of us and is just politically and personally divisive as this pandemic so personally affects all of us in so many ways.  The articles you post are more often than not intended to create doubt in vaccines and masks - the very things you claim to "be on board with".  It is terribly disheartening.   While you may claim not to subscribe every jot and title of the article, the article itself is usually poison. 

Quote

If the CDC - an organ of the government - is quietly but substantially re-defining terms relevant to the pandemic, I think that merits some attention and discussion.

Then bring it up.  I am fine with addressing it.  But what I am not ok with is the conspiratorial nature of the article you post it in which creates unnecessary doubt in vaccines themselves.   Find a better article.  It shouldn't be that hard to find a good reliable source without all the BS.  If you can't find a better source, the article itself is probably junk and not worth talking about.   Use that as a measuring stick.  If you are more likely than likely to say, "I don't agree with the tone, conclusions, speculation, and conspiratorial nature" than don't post it.  I read this stuff as your voice.  You hide behind the article every time you post them.  Stop posting articles that you can't endorse.  It's that simple.  Stop polluting the forums with poison and expecting a civil response. 

I am not saying all your articles are bad, just the vast majority. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

I needed something that spoke to the reliability of some of the information/rumors out there. This was all I had at short notice. 

My apologies for misunderstanding the space.

Link to comment

This just in: Pres. Biden will sign (or has signed) an executive order requiring all federal employees and contractors to be vaccinated, without the option of getting regular testing.

Per this article, that works out to about 9.1 million people (the count as of 2015) who no longer have a choice about whether to be vaccinated or not.  Well, I suppose they can choose to get vaccinated or lose their job, benefits, retirement, etc.

I'll be interested to see if this is legal.

I'm also interested to see what sort of limiting principle is in play here.  If the government can require its employees to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, can it require civilians to get vaccinated as a condition of, say, getting a tax return?  Entering a federal building?  Driving on the interstate?  Going into any bank insured by the FDIC?  

And if the federal government can do this, why not the states?  Per this article, in 2014 "state and local governments employed about 7.4 million full-time equivalent (FTE) workers."  If we include "teachers and those working in education, the total more than doubles to about 16.2 million public employees (excluding federal government) nationwide."

Can the government also mandate vaccines for the seasonal flu?  If not, why not?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

You can't simply provide it again?  My guess is that it is based on the discredited AP and Rolling Stone hysteria and that is why you are shying away from this.  I don't get why you are digging in your heals on this discredited narrative, if that is the case.

I don't know about using ivermectin as a prophylactic.  I'm not a doctor.  But why not try it out on willing patients?  There are experts like Dr. Bret Weinstein who are using it as a prophylactic.  Why not have a big study on this and other possible remedies?  We did this for the vaccine and approved Pfizer's in record time.  Why not do the same thing for ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or other repurposed drugs?

How much of a dent do you think Ivermectin as a prophylactic would make in Covid at $100 for 20 pills, daily use for the rest of your life?  Just curious.  Maybe we should focus our resources on more reasonable and realistic approaches. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

  My guess is that it is based on the discredited AP and Rolling Stone hysteria

It is not.  This was posted by Pogi earlier:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/30/fact-check-590-spike-texas-poison-control-calls-ivermectin/5643254001/

Here is another reporting a massive increase based on a CDC report:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/94223

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am hostile to your posts because they are largely speculative and clearly slanted, and quite honestly pretty ridiculous most of the time (yes, I realize that is subjective). 

Then ignore them.  Please.  Quit board nannying.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

My tone (which you frequently get after me for) is largely reflective of the tone of your articles - dismissive, divisive, and contentious.  Whenever I point this out to you, you always hide behind the post and say "that is not my voice - I don't necessarily condone their tone or message".   If you want me to step up smac, you need to do the same.  Don't post rubbish and expect rubies in return.  

Meh.  I want to have a substantive discussion.  

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem with your approach to politics and policy is that 90% of it is speculative.  I hate that.  I can't do anything with it. 

Then feel free to ignore my posts.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't help any of us and is just politically and personally divisive as this pandemic so personally affects all of us in so many ways. 

You aren't addressing my points.  Again:

  • If the CDC - an organ of the government - is quietly but substantially re-defining terms relevant to the pandemic, I think that merits some attention and discussion.
  • When the White House seems to be tailoring public guidance and policy about the pandemic to suit the preferences of teachers unions, I think that merits some attention and discussion.

I think these are salient concerns.  You don't.  Fine.  Ignore them.  But quit trying to censor me.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

The articles you post are more often than not intended to create doubt in vaccines and masks - the very things you claim to "be on board with".  It is terribly disheartening.

Meh.  I have repeatedly said that I support vaccines, masks, and social distancing.  I do so again now.  

That said, I reject the notion that we must stifle any and all discussion or analysis of the problematic things done by governmental and other actors.  As I said before:

Quote

I am generally on board with masks, but I have some concerns about "noble lies" told about them, and about the far-reaching ramifications of some aspects of mask mandates.  I am generally on board with vaccines, but I have some concerns about the far-reaching ramifications of vaccine passports.  And I think sneering / nasty / condescending rhetoric against the "vaccine hesitant" folks is both unseemly and counterproductive.  I think we should focus on persuading more than coercing.  I am concerned about precedents being set that will allow the government to continuously invoke emergent circumstances as a basis for asserting even more power over civil liberties than it has now.  The Star Wars prequels were not intended as a "how to" guide.

If you don't care about the lies told about masks, fine.  But quit trying to censor me, since I think that merits discussion and attention.

If you don't care about persuading the "vaccine hesitant" folks, or about respecting and acknowledging the legitimacy of at least some of their concerns, fine.  But quit trying to tell me what I can or cannot say about how we can improve our efforts in helping these people overcome their hesitancy.

If you don't care about the implications that mask mandates and vaccine passports may have on civil liberties, fine.  But quit trying to stifle me for expressing concerns about those things.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

While you may claim not to subscribe every jot and title of the article, the article itself is usually poison. 

Melodramatic twaddle.  The participants on this board can walk and chew gum at the same time.  We can sift facts from opinion and editorializing.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

If the CDC - an organ of the government - is quietly but substantially re-defining terms relevant to the pandemic, I think that merits some attention and discussion.

Then bring it up.  I am fine with addressing it. 

I did bring it up.  And you threw a hissy fit:

Quote
Quote

 

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

Further commentary here:

Input, Pogi?

 

What do I think?  I think I lose more respect for you with every political conspiracy article that you post on here.
...
Of course, someone is going to make a conspiracy theory out of this and blame it on Biden!  

...
No, I don't find it disturbing.  What do you think smac?
...

Just an effort to clarify a complex process.  What do you think smac?

What do I really think though???   I think I need some time away from all of this.  

Peace out y'all,  This is all too much. 

Nothing persuades me to a point of view faster than public expressions of contempt against me personally.  Because I posted a link and asked for your input.

As Aristotle kinda sorta put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

I post links not because I endorse every jot and tittle of them, but because they contain information that I believe is salient and worth discussing.  I typically limit my quotations to the portions I find relevant (see, e.g., here).  

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

But what I am not ok with is the conspiratorial nature of the article you post it in which creates unnecessary doubt in vaccines themselves.   Find a better article. 

I have an alternative proposal: Quit trying to dictate to others what they can and cannot say on a thread that was specifically designed to discuss "touchy subjects."

Quit board nannying.  Quit hectoring.  If you don't like a post, then ignore it.  If you don't find a linked article helpful, then post a better one.  But please stop trying to censor my speech.

As Justice Louis Brandeis once put it: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Quit trying to enforce silence.  Please.

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

It shouldn't be that hard to find a good reliable source without all the BS.  If you can't find a better source, the article itself is probably junk and not worth talking about.   

Then ignore it.  No need to censor my speech.  

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Use that as a measuring stick. If you are more likely than likely to say, "I don't agree with the tone, conclusions, speculation, and conspiratorial nature" than don't post it.  I read this stuff as your voice.  You hide behind the article every time you post them.  Stop posting articles that you can't endorse.  It's that simple.  Stop polluting the forums with poison and expecting a civil response. 

As long as we're trading diktats, here's mine: Quit telling other posters what they can and cannot say on a thread about "touchy subjects."

Quit trying to censor speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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