5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

(edited)
5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Westerly,

And, as the non-vax'd die off, we get closer & closer.

Jerry Baumchen

Yea but if we play it that way, by the time everyone gets infected we will be on COVID-27. It will just be an endless loop of new variants reinfecting over and over. I say drop the hammer hard. No vaccine = no service & no job. You can order your crap on Amazon and start your own online business. No BS religious exemptions either. The Pope got vaccinated along with nearly all of the high cardinals.... Talk about a mic drop...

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Westerly,

And, as the non-vax'd die off, we get closer & closer.

Jerry Baumchen

I wish it were that simple, but many anti-vaxer's will either not get it or will get a mild case and turn around to say 'see, it wasn't that bad, this whole thing was a hoax all along'.  If it were true that no vaccination == death-sentence, a lot more people would be willing to re-think their ideologies.  

The number of people dead or suffering long-term consequences due to COVID should be enough to convince any rational person to take precautions with vaccinations, masks etc....that said, there are enough people who have various (ill-conceived) reasons for not taking precautions who can look at their buddy Tim who caught COVID and walked away, who will use that as justification for pretending that it isn't a major issue.  And there will always be enough 'Tim's' to keep that narrative alive for the true believers.  It sucks and it's ridiculous: I mean, think about the insanity of coming on a skydiving forum to brag about going to Disney unmasked just to own the Libs! 

As JoeWeber pointed out recently, the inability to take sensible precautions with such a sudden/acute threat coming out of left field and killing so many people in 18 months makes me pessimistic about our ability to deal with climate change.  I remember in the early days of the pandemic seeing a LinkedIn post from an oilfield connection saying something along the lines of "I guess those 'scientists' predicting 300,000 deaths are the same guys predicting more disasters from climate change".  I wish I'd grabbed a screenshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just wondering how many people who say the vaccine was developed too quickly will be all over the new almost-approved just-developed medication that supposedly reduces the likelihood of serious illness. 
Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I’m just wondering how many people who say the vaccine was developed too quickly will be all over the new almost-approved just-developed medication that supposedly reduces the likelihood of serious illness. 
Wendy P. 

The requirement for which should be a vaccine. Sorry, you turned down the vaccine? Sorry, no scientific medication for you. You'll just have to sus it out with some O2 and a bed. Certainly no loss to society. If Covid was an engineered weapon, it was engineered to kill the most stupid of us and it's doing a fantastic job doing that.

Edited by Westerly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I’m just wondering how many people who say the vaccine was developed too quickly will be all over the new almost-approved just-developed medication that supposedly reduces the likelihood of serious illness. 
Wendy P. 

But the right wingers won't take it until they release a version for horses.:tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I’m just wondering how many people who say the vaccine was developed too quickly will be all over the new almost-approved just-developed medication that supposedly reduces the likelihood of serious illness. 

I predict they will be all over it until it is approved and Biden pushes it.  Then it will become untested poison intended to kill millions, part of some democratic Bill Gates New World Order plan to depopulate the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2021 at 4:37 PM, Westerly said:

The requirement for which should be a vaccine. Sorry, you turned down the vaccine? Sorry, no scientific medication for you.

TBF, that is sort of the case with this treatment already, since it is only intended for use by patients exhibiting only mild to moderate symptoms.  Does that automatically rule out unvaccinated? No, but the unvax'd are more likely to get the severe cases and die.  Plus, as long as it is approved for this age group, you can't withhold from those who are ineligible.

Let's also be clear it is a treatment, not a cure. I always recommend important distinctions should be part of the conversation from the outset (not criticizing you, Westerly -- general statement).  If we don't, we continue in these situations to end up where we are now, for example: very sick people admitted to the hospital, asking if they can get the vaccine now. Those without medical backgrounds don't know how vaccines work. They don't know that a treatment is not a cure.  It has to be said early, often, and habitually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is time to get that shingles vaccine I've been ignoring.

 

For people over 50 years old, 

"(shingles) vaccination was associated with a 16% lower risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and 32% lower risk of hospitalization, suggesting RZV elicits heterologous protection, possibly through trained immunity."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.01.21264400v1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, headoverheels said:

"(shingles) vaccination was associated with a 16% lower risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and 32% lower risk of hospitalization, suggesting RZV elicits heterologous protection, possibly through trained immunity."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.01.21264400v1

 

Or it's more that people who tend to get vaccines tend to be a little more science-oriented, and thus use other mitigations (i.e. masking, distancing etc)

There was an interesting study of diets a while back that concluded that all diets (diets that were followed at least) worked.  The discussion of the results suggested that the actual diet itself was not that important; what was important was that someone who was willing to stick to a diet was, in general, more careful about what they ate, and more likely to reject harmful foods on that basis alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I both caught our first proper cold that our little one brought back from school about 10 days ago. Since then this cold has hit both of us harder than one ever has before.

I ususally take a week to get over a cold, but my wife is always done in about 2 or 3 days, and never gets as sick as I do - I'm super envious of her. This one absolutlely FUCKED us both for about 10 days. Today is the first day I feel functional. It was really, really bad, but strain-wise, probably no different than a normal common cold.

 

There's a phrase going around now called 'Immunity debt' - basically because we've not been exposed to all the small pathogens over the last 18 months that we usually are, our immune systems are effectively in hibernation. This means that when you do come across a virus it's going to spread faster in a population and hit harder than it normally would.

I tell you what - it's made getting the flu vaccine much more of a priority for me this year. If a flu does start going around it's really going to hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Maybe it is time to get that shingles vaccine I've been ignoring.

 

For people over 50 years old, 

"(shingles) vaccination was associated with a 16% lower risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and 32% lower risk of hospitalization, suggesting RZV elicits heterologous protection, possibly through trained immunity."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.01.21264400v1

 

Good idea, I had shingles 2 years ago and I can tell you, you don't want to get it.  I was on the list to get a shingles vaccination before but it was in short supply and I couldn't get it.  Now that is available I will get the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that getting Covid does not confer long term immunity:


https://scitechdaily.com/for-unvaccinated-covid-reinfection-is-likely-can-happen-in-three-months-or-less/

Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” said Jeffrey Townsend, the Elihu Professor of Biostatistics at the Yale School of Public Health and the study’s lead author. “Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated. Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
59 minutes ago, winsor said:

If you want to understand many apparently complex issues, take the advice of 'Deep Throat' and follow the money:

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin---truth-and-totalitarianism/article_2e03f334-252f-11ec-a086-eb72bc65ec02.html

 

BSBD,

Winsor

You really need to read sites that have less of a bias toward conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation. It might help you.

 

The Desert Review

The Desert Review - Right Center Bias - Questionable - Conservative - Not Credible - PseudoscienceFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

 
  • Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-desert-review-bias/

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
25 minutes ago, yoink said:

eally need to read sites that have less of a bias toward conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation.

You left out the best part: the author, Dr. Justus R. Hope is a complete fraud. 

"Many pro-Ivermectin opinion articles are written by Justus R. Hope, MD., who admits this name is a pseudonym underneath the articles he writes. Dr. Hope also writes under his fake name in a book he authored Surviving Cancer, COVID-19, and Disease: The Repurposed Drug Revolution."

EDIT: Evidently, he wrote, "The Coffee Cure Diet."

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yoink said:

You really need to read sites that have less of a bias toward conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation. It might help you.

 

The Desert Review

The Desert Review - Right Center Bias - Questionable - Conservative - Not Credible - PseudoscienceFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.

 
  • Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-desert-review-bias/

If you address content, fine, Ad Hominem (circumstantial) is another thing altogether.  If you want 'misinformation regarding covid-19' you need look no further than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

If you want to understand many apparently complex issues, take the advice of 'Deep Throat' and follow the money:

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin---truth-and-totalitarianism/article_2e03f334-252f-11ec-a086-eb72bc65ec02.html

 

BSBD,

Winsor

People aren't really this stupid right? 

Merck comes out saying don't use Ivermectin, since there is no scientific basis for therapeutic effect. Your "expert" labels that as a lie and produces a link to a study showing the effect of Ivermectin in vitro. Guess what else kills the Coronavirus in vitro? Bleach. I guess the reason we don't use bleach to treat COVID is because the anti-bleach lobby is just too powerful.

Never mind that it was also at a dosage much higher than recommended for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5