The Other Covid Thread

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

felt like the middle panel of the comic below applies to that article. 

Lol, I was feeling that way while reading it, so my brain went into trying to separate out one variable to think about at a time…which triggered massive releases of fog instead of what my brain used to do, which was kick into analytical overdrive (just in case that sounds like bragging instead a statement of fact, I will add I have always been rotten at most forms of art, sports, and creative writing).  It is both annoying and embarrassing. I used to be really good at parsing research and now it is like I am driving along nicely only to slam into a wall.  Definitely missing the right amounts of neurochemicals too often these days.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

18 hours ago, BRMC said:

CFR please

https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/utah-adds-over-7-2k-new-covid-19-cases-and-44-deaths-amid-new-single-day-high-since-pandemic/

18 of those deaths were under 65 years old.

6 were under 45.

 

[smac97]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

It's the same with masking and social distancing - people can still be vectors.  There is no silver bullet, but all measures to reduce transmission are important.  Measures that both reduce transmission and simultaneously reduce hospitalization and death if infected are good things.

Well, that seems a bit much.  We need to assess the reasonableness, and legality, and ramifications (on the economy, civil liberties, mental health, and so on) of such "measures."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

This has been known for a very long  time. It surprises me they are trying to pass this off as 'new' information.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting…I started not being able to focus so need to take a break before finishing it.  I want to know why being Republican appears to make a difference (26% less likely iirc) if it is age (being 60 and older) that is the only category that has a significantly different prediction rate from other categories for being vaccinated.  Hopefully that will be explained.

Yep.

Quote

my analysis of the Marist poll finds that Republican party affiliation is associated with a 26 percent increased chance of being unvaccinated, controlling for other factors

Age was found to be the primary predictive factor (no surprise), and it turns out that the percentage of republicans over 50 is higher than democrats.  The percentage of republicans over 65 is also higher than democrats.  Republicans are older than democrats on average and STILL are vaccinated way less.  Anyone trying to convince me that party affiliation is not a MAJOR influencer on vaccination rates has some explaining to do.

My question is why?  What is it about the republican party that causes them to oppose and/or refuse Covid vaccines?  Not even Trump can convince them!  Based on evidence that I have seen on these forums, one of the primary arguments is that Covid is no big deal (I wonder who they picked that up from), and that the vaccine is unproven.  Why?  Why are republicans so much more likely to think that Covid is not a big deal, despite them being statistically higher risk with an older population?  They did not hear that narrative from top medical experts in infectious disease and public health, nor from critical care nurses and doctors treating severe Covid patients...where oh where could such a large percentage of one single political party learn such a narrative?  Why did that dangerous narrative stick with republican's and not with democrats?  But what politically divisive world leader would admit to such a dangerous game of downplaying the virus?  Hmmm... 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/the-changing-composition-of-the-electorate-and-partisan-coalitions/

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This has been known for a very long  time. It surprises me they are trying to pass this off as 'new' information.

This study was out of India.  They did not control for type of fabric, fit, or layer.   I remember seeing previous studies which did control for these factors and found that some fabric masks outperformed surgical masks by pretty big margins. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, that seems a bit much.  We need to assess the reasonableness, and legality, and ramifications (on the economy, civil liberties, mental health, and so on) of such "measures."  

Thanks,

-Smac

How do you propose that be measured and assessed?  Who gets to weight when it is ethical to restrict civil liberties given a million deaths?  Where are the outlines to judge such a thing?  How do we measure the effects of mental health of such a mandate before it has been implemented?  How do we compare the mental health benefits of the mandates for those who are scared of the virus and/or vulnerable or have vulnerable friends/family members vs the mental health of those who are scared of the vaccine due to lies that it is more dangerous than the virus?   How do we measure economic impact?  How can that be predicted?  What positive impact might it have on the economy with increasing public confidence?  How do we put all that in balance?   These are impossible questions designed to keep a mandate from moving forward.  It seems disingenuous to suggest that without answers to these questions, it is unethical to implement the mandate - full well knowing there is no way to make an assessment of such magnitude.  How do we weigh the value of life against the value of the dollar or temporary restricted civil liberties?  

 

[bsjkki]

 

[Tacenda]

Emergency, emergency....my son is here arguing about Ivermectin being denied to those that want to use it. And thinks people are being denied it to treat covid over the vaccine. Any help to promptly answer would be great, I'm kinda feeling overwhelmed with the anniversary of January 6th and having children who may side with those that believe that Trump won the election, I want to cry right now and seeing how our world is not the same.  

Edited January 6, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Well, that seems a bit much.  We need to assess the reasonableness, and legality, and ramifications (on the economy, civil liberties, mental health, and so on) of such "measures."  

How do you propose that be measured and assessed? 

With reasoning, evidence, analysis and so on.

Take the recent modification of the quarantine protocols.  See here:

Quote

People who test positive for the coronavirus need to isolate themselves for only five days if they don't show symptoms, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday. This cuts in half the earlier recommendation of 10 days of isolation.

Data shows that the majority of coronavirus transmission "occurs early in the course of illness," the CDC explained — generally in the one or two days before symptoms begin and two or three days after.

"Therefore, people who test positive should isolate for 5 days and, if asymptomatic at that time, they may leave isolation if they can continue to mask for 5 days to minimize the risk of infecting others," the CDC said in a statement.

Why the change in protocol, well, we understand more about the virus ("Data shows that the majority of coronavirus transmission 'occurs early in the course of illness....'"), but that's not the only factor being weighed:

Quote

Dr. Megan Ranney, the associate dean at Brown University's School of Public Health, tweeted Monday that a major reason the federal government altered isolation requirements is due to the economic strain of a full quarantine.

"Our economy is going to shut down if everyone has to isolate for 10 days. Luckily the science backs up the move, at least partially," she tweeted. "On the one hand: I'm all for following the science for the vaccinated & asymptomatic. No reason to keep people home unnecessarily."

"{A} major reason the federal government altered isolation requirements is due to the economic strain of a full quarantine."

Quote

The new guidance comes days after the CDC loosened rules for how long health care workers should isolate after infection with the coronavirus, from 10 days to seven days. If there were staffing shortages, that isolation time could be further reduced.

"If there were staffing shortages [in medical facilities], that isolation time could be further reduced."

And here:

Quote

Why are countries cutting quarantine as Omicron cases explode?

The UK, Spain, Ireland and Greece have shortened isolation periods for infected people.
...
 

Why are countries doing it?

With European infection rates soaring especially over the past week, countries are searching for tools that can keep hospitals and essential public services running, while limiting the spread of the virus

In the U.K., which has recorded over 100,000 cases daily since December 22, reaching over 189,846 on Friday, London commuter trains have been canceled due to staff absence with COVID-19 while hospitals are under immense pressure from labor shortages and increasing COVID-19 patients.

In England, there were 24,632 hospital staffers absent due to COVID-19 sickness or self-isolation on December 26, according to NHS England data released Friday.

The U.K. Health Security Agency said the reduced quarantine period was in part based on the need to protect vital services and supply chains over the winter.

In Greece, the health ministry said hospitals were already overcrowded from Delta cases when Omicron arrived. The country is now facing record infection figures, with Omicron now the dominant variant, accounting for more than 60 percent of cases.

Meanwhile, U.S. CDC chief Rochelle Walensky acknowledged that the agency's decision to alter the recommended isolation period “really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.” She told local media that throughout the pandemic fewer than a third of people have followed isolation guidance.

"{T}he reduced quarantine period was in part based on the need to protect vital services and supply chains over the winter."

"{The CDC's} decision to alter the recommended isolation period 'really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.'"

We need to take these things into account when making public policy.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Who gets to weight when it is ethical to restrict civil liberties given a million deaths? 

In a constitutional federal republic with robust Free Speech rights?  The citizenry gets to voice their views, which elected officials then (hopefully) take into account.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where are the outlines to judge such a thing? 

The "thing" being what?

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do we measure the effects of mental health of such a mandate before it has been implemented? 

Educated assessments.  See above.  The CDC reduced quarantine timeframes for a variety of reasons, including current compliance.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do we compare the mental health benefits of the mandates for those who are scared of the virus and/or vulnerable or have vulnerable friends/family members vs the mental health of those who are scared of the vaccine due to lies that it is more dangerous than the virus?   How do we measure economic impact?  How can that be predicted?  What positive impact might it have on the economy with increasing public confidence?  How do we put all that in balance?   These are impossible questions designed to keep a mandate from moving forward. 

These are not impossible questions, only difficult ones.  And difficult or no, they need to be addressed.

A vaccine mandate is not a fait accompli.  It may not even be legal.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems disingenuous to suggest that without answers to these questions, it is unethical to implement the mandate - full well knowing there is no way to make an assessment of such magnitude. 

First, I have not suggested any such thing.

Second, these questions can be answered.

Third, the assessment must be made, regardless of the difficulty involved.

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do we weigh the value of life against the value of the dollar or temporary restricted civil liberties?  

With great care.  With reasoning and analysis.  Within the confines of the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Emergency, emergency....my son is here arguing about Ivermectin being denied to those that want to use it. And thinks people are being denied it to treat covid over the virus. Any help promptly to answer.  

Contrary to what people think, prescription drugs aren't prescribed simply because a patient "wants" it.  It would be an off-label use for Covid.  If a doctor or clinic doesn't feel comfortable prescribing it for Covid, some people may be denied it.  Other doctors may not have a problem.  The FDA's discouragement of its use for treatment or prevention of Covid will likely effect doctor's practices. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

There are proven treatments specific for Covid now that are easier to get than Ivermectin (and proven to work better).  Why is Ivermectin still being talked about?

[bsjkki]

 

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

We can take measures to stop pandemic and accelerated levels of transmission, to protect the healthcare system, and to reduce death, but this thing ain't going away.  It has long been known that it will become endemic, especially given zoonotic transmission/hosts. 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Contrary to what people think, prescription drugs aren't prescribed simply because a patient "wants" it.  It would be an off-label use for Covid.  If a doctor or clinic doesn't feel comfortable prescribing it for Covid, some people may be denied it.  Other doctors may not have a problem.  The FDA's discouragement of its use for treatment or prevention of Covid will likely effect doctor's practices. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

There are proven treatments specific for Covid now that are easier to get than Ivermectin (and proven to work better).  Why is Ivermectin still being talked about?

The recent Joe Rogan podcast with the doctor saying how it should be used to treat and how people are not able to get it, like it's a conspiracy theory. My first post has been edited. I was writing and my son read it and I quickly finished it w/o proofreading. He's gone now. He's a great person and son, but feels like the youth are thinking every bit of news out there is false and Joe Rogan is the person to believe, or his podcasts are. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Emergency, emergency....my son is here arguing about Ivermectin being denied to those that want to use it. And thinks people are being denied it to treat covid over the vaccine. Any help to promptly answer would be great, I'm kinda feeling overwhelmed with the anniversary of January 6th and having children who may side with those that believe that Trump won the election, I want to cry right now and seeing how our world is not the same.  

Maybe it is okay for him to view these things differently than you?  Political differences can feel alienating but maybe just love him and realize differing perspectives on these issues should not effect your relationship with your son. 
 

I don’t align with my kids on faith and politics or agree with any family member completely but we make it work and I try and relate to their perspective even though I disagree. 

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The recent Joe Rogan podcast with the doctor saying how it should be used to treat and how people are not able to get it, like it's a conspiracy theory. My first post has been edited. I was writing and my son read it and I quickly finished it w/o proofreading. He's gone now. He's a great person and son, but feels like the youth are think every bit of news out there is false and Joe Rogan is the person to believe, or his podcasts are. 

It is a sad day when kids (and grown ups) trust radio show hosts, comedians, MMA fighters, and pro-psychedelia nuts (all describing Joe Rogan) over trusted institutions of health with unprecedented records and history in combating infectious disease, when it comes to Covid information.  

I don't know what to tell you, other than pray for him and love him the same. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is a sad day when kids (and grown ups) trust radio show hosts, comedians, MMA fighters, and pro-psychedelia nuts (all describing Joe Rogan) over trusted institutions of health with unprecedented records and history in combating infectious disease, when it comes to Covid information.

You realize Joe Rogan does an interview style podcast, right? It’s not ‘believe Joe Rogan.’ He has long form interviews with guests. All kinds of guests with differing views and accreditation. 
 

Differing views about  stuff is okay. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You realize Joe Rogan does an interview style podcast, right? It’s not ‘believe Joe Rogan.’ He has long form interviews with guests. All kinds of guests with differing views and accreditation. 
 

Differing views about  stuff is okay. 

I understand, but he mentioned how many believe Joe Rogan's podcast over the news. I guess he read it somewhere. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I understand, but he mentioned how many believe Joe Rogan's podcast over the news. I guess he read it somewhere. 

The news has lost a lot of credibility with many. It’s not surprising. 

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You realize Joe Rogan does an interview style podcast, right?

Ummm, yes I know who he is and what he does.  You do realize that along with interviewing others on his podcast he freely shares his own off-the cuff commentaries and conspiracy theories about liberals starting the wild fires in Oregon, even encouraging young people to not get vaccinated, or that Joe Bidden faked getting the Covid vaccine.  He also frequently promotes illegal drugs and jokes about his psychedelic trips with guests.  This crap didn't come from his guests mouths. 

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Differing views about  stuff is okay. 

Then you shouldn't have any problem with me disagreeing with and opposing his views.  I can disagree with him and STRONGLY encourage young viewers to wise up as this guy as a danger to society.

Not all views should be tolerated.  Some are too dangerous and deadly and vile.  While they are free to share them, I am free to oppose them. 

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not all views should be tolerated. 

Agree you can fight against him all you want but the above statement is dangerous. Who decides what views are not ‘tolerated.’ I would not want you to have the power to deplatform and censor.

[Mike Drop]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Emergency, emergency....my son is here arguing about Ivermectin being denied to those that want to use it. And thinks people are being denied it to treat covid over the vaccine. Any help to promptly answer would be great, I'm kinda feeling overwhelmed with the anniversary of January 6th and having children who may side with those that believe that Trump won the election, I want to cry right now and seeing how our world is not the same.  

Buy him a beer, everything will be ok. 

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Agree you can fight against him all you want but the above statement is dangerous. Who decides what views are not ‘tolerated.’ I would not want you to have the power to deplatform and censor.

Who said anything about censorship?

People are free to believe what they want.  They are free to express their views (to a limited extent).  That doesn't make them "okay".   I am not capable of being subject to all views without adverse reactions (tolerance).  I do not have to accept and endure dangerous views with forebarance (tolerance).  I am free to oppose and reject such views for the filth that they are. 

Not all views are "okay".  Some are flat out wrong and dangerous and should be opposed and not tolerated. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi

[BRMC]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/utah-adds-over-7-2k-new-covid-19-cases-and-44-deaths-amid-new-single-day-high-since-pandemic/

18 of those deaths were under 65 years old.

6 were under 45.

 

Those are reported deaths.  23 of those deaths happened over a month ago.

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Those are reported deaths.  23 of those deaths happened over a month ago.

I didn't see that in the report.  If that is true - Ok.