Coronavirus

[FalseFlagg K]

I'm not at all confused by quackery (aka "integrative and complementary medicine"). If the stuff worked, it would just be medicine.


?????? Do you have me confused with someone else?


This language is straight out of the anti-vaxxer playbook. You're falling down the rabbit hole.


I don't know about Australia, but here we have the V-safe system and the VAERS database, so if anything things get over-reported.


Whom have I advocated to be censored? Most pharmaceuticals are despicable, but that doesn't change the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines.


I don't. I have continually asked you for the risk/reward numbers you use to justify your stance. You continually duck instead of providing them, only to come back in a couple of weeks with the same rhetoric and no more information.


I await your laying out the facts that support you. Instead, you link to studies of no benefit, make insinuations without evidence, and JAQ off.


So you have said. Yet, you're adopting some of their language and rhetoric style.


Where are the numbers you use to justify this?


Always good advice.


Do you have the answer? What are the myocarditis risks to young people who catch covid19, and how do they compare to the risks from the vaccine?

If you don't have this information, you know who I think does? The WHO and the CDC.

dude your faith in these bodies is staggering. You mean the WHO that continuously denied possible human to human transmission was possible and was breathtakingly late in declaring Covid a pandemic ?? Or the CDC ... lol .. the CDC whose director unambiguously stated earlier in 2021 that vaccinated people did not carry the virus nor spread it or get sick. This is not debatable that the information has often been wrong right from the get go. I would never previously have been cynical about government intentions and processes until 6 months into the pandemic and always laughed at people who didn't vaccinate their kids against the common childhood diseases ( and still do btw)

Sadly there has been so much inaccuracy and misrepresentation that i have slowly become thus. Treating young healthy people the same way as elderly and unwell/immunocompromised/metabolically compromised with respect to Covid is just so dumb. The numbers all suggest this, let alone the philosophical risk / reward considerations. There are no medium / long term studies of benefits / risks of Covid vaccines with young healthy people. That's also not debatable. We have different views which is fine, i'm not going to call you names even though i feel certain attitudes you have make me ill. I'd appreciate the same. You can find a study that shows whatever you want and interpret numbers in any manner of ways, i don't have the time or inclination to list the many varied sources i read.

 

[Rubashov]

nope these figures exclude Covid related deaths. It means that a statistically very significant number of more people are dying per month than what one would normally expect. Why ? who knows, but i find it a little alarming at the least that it's not being looked into. My first guess at least here is that it is probably as a result of people not having been receiving their regular medical care over the last few years, so that preventable diseases such as heart disease, cancers etc are being treated too late. Pure guess though

That would be my guess.

Not anywhere near as critical but indicative of access issues. I was down on my property in Tassie, no surprise after working myself to the bone day after day, the minute I stopped i got sick, ended up with a chest infection, which as an asthmatic can be an issue. I was in rural Tassie and was utterly unable to access medical treatment, all the local clinics refused to see me. Short of heading to Royal Hobart, where if I was going to catch COVID it was likely that I would in their waiting room, there was no way a doctor would see me. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[One Brow]

dude your faith in these bodies is staggering. You mean the WHO that continuously denied possible human to human transmission was possible and was breathtakingly late in declaring Covid a pandemic ??

The WHO denied that human-to-human transmission of a corona virus was impossible? I think someone's pulling your leg. This is what I mean about you starting to fall down the rabbit hole. How could you read something like this and take it seriously, without even taking a moment to check?

Fact check: The World Health Organization did not say COVID-19 can’t transmit from person to person

Social media users are sharing a video with a caption that claims the World Health Organization (WHO) has said social distancing is not needed as COVID-19 cannot transmit from person to person. This is false.

www.reuters.com

Or the CDC ... lol .. the CDC whose director unambiguously stated earlier in 2021 that vaccinated people did not carry the virus nor spread it or get sick.

I'm gonna need a source on that one. We all agree that vaccinated people are less likely to get sick, get less sick, and for this reason spread less virus, but I don't recall the director of the CDC saying this was an absolute.

This is not debatable that the information has often been wrong right from the get go.

I don't know anyone who thinks that the pandemic was handled as well as possible.

Treating young healthy people the same way as elderly and unwell/immunocompromised/metabolically compromised with respect to Covid is just so dumb.

What are the differences in treatment (besides vaccination) that you recommend?

The numbers all suggest this, let alone the philosophical risk / reward considerations.

I'm still waiting to see your risk/reward numbers. Anytime this decade?

I'd appreciate the same.

Have I ever called you a name?

You can find a study that shows whatever you want and interpret numbers in any manner of ways, i don't have the time or inclination to list the many varied sources i read.

I've only asked for the risk/reward numbers you claim support your position.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ For example, one of many. This analysis of Pfizer's clinical trial data has arrived at a 1 in 800 serious adverse reaction rate. "First do no harm" ???????????? this is totally unacceptable as far as a risk for healthy young people goes. Many scientists and medical professionals are calling for a stratified approach, a risk/reward assessment to be implemented.

So yeah you have called me names, "Antivaxxer" It's just lazy and weak. And if you can't find clips of her saying that, along with Fauci and your President well you're not very good at googlizing then.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/ For example, one of many. This analysis of Pfizer's clinical trial data has arrived at a 1 in 800 serious adverse reaction rate. "First do no harm" ???????????? this is totally unacceptable as far as a risk for healthy young people goes. Many scientists and medical professionals are calling for a stratified approach, a risk/reward assessment to be implemented.

I agree with performing the risk/reward calculations. Of course, they need to be comparable. Saying "the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization" is like saying 'the chance of getting an infected blister while wearing a steel toe sheath was much higher than the chance of getting your toe cut off when you don't wear the sheath'. What we need to know is 1) is the (to continue the metaphor) chance of getting a blister higher for those wearing a sheath, or lower, and 2) is the chance of cutting your toe off higher or lower. This study does not answer that. It looked at adverse event within a few weeks of vaccination. Protection from vaccination last, to some degree, for months. How do the two populations compare then? Is there any evidence that young, unvaccinated people experience fewer AESIs than young people who are vaccinated over a 6-month period?

So yeah you have called me names, "Antivaxxer" It's just lazy and weak.

Also inaccurate. I've actually told other posters your not an antivaxxer. You can take your persecution complex and shove it.

And if you can't find clips of her saying that, along with Fauci and your President well you're not very good at googlizing then.

I 've been interacting on this topic for a couple of years now, and still haven't seen the CDC director nor Fauci saying that, despite the claims of people who want to twist their words. Biden did say something to that effect, was wrong for so doing, and his team released a correction (the next day?).

 

[Bucknutz]

I'm gonna need a source on that one. We all agree that vaccinated people are less likely to get sick, get less sick, and for this reason spread less virus, but I don't recall the director of the CDC saying this was an absolute.

It's on the Maddow Show...

"WALENSKY: First of all, I just want to note that I share this optimism. I`m so -- I`m so impressed with our ability to vaccinate at a clip of 3 million vaccinations a day. We have 93 million Americans who have gotten their first dose, 51 million who have gotten their second dose.

And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data."

Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/29/21

Guests: Rochelle Walensky, Brandt Williams

www.msnbc.com

I have posted about this before, about misinformation that came from the government and pushed on social media.

 

[One Brow]

It's on the Maddow Show...

"WALENSKY: First of all, I just want to note that I share this optimism. I`m so -- I`m so impressed with our ability to vaccinate at a clip of 3 million vaccinations a day. We have 93 million Americans who have gotten their first dose, 51 million who have gotten their second dose.

And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data."

Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/29/21

Guests: Rochelle Walensky, Brandt Williams

www.msnbc.com

I have posted about this before, about misinformation that came from the government and pushed on social media.

From earlier the linked transcript, by Maddow:

... looking at thousands of front line health workers and essential workers who have gotten vaccinated and who have since been doing their jobs and living in a real world, not only are the vaccines for those folks, thousands of them, keeping those people from getting sick from COVID themselves, those vaccines are also highly effective at preventing those people from getting infected, even with non-symptomatic infection. And if you are not infected, you can`t give it to anybody else.

"Highly effective" <> absolute.

So, just to be clear: did you believe Walensky was making an absolute statement when you read the transcript or listened to the interview, or did it seem more conversational to you and not aimed at being precise? For example, when she said "You know, we`re still losing people at 1,000 deaths a day.", did you believe that we were losing exactly 1,000 people per day?

There's a difference between reading to understand and reading to attack. Which were you doing here?

 

[Bucknutz]

"Highly effective" <> absolute.

Why didn’t you add on a few paragraphs past that?

“It means that instead of a vaccine being able -- excuse me, it means instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person to person, spreading and spreading, sickening some of them but not all of them, and the ones it doesn`t sicken don`t know they have it and they give it to mere poem because they didn`t recognize, right? Instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person, potentially mutating and becoming more virulent and drug resistant along the way, now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.

A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.”

She clarified the paragraph that you brought up with an absolute. Also remember this is Maddow speaking, not the CDC Director.

Then she brings on Walensky and the CDC director says:
“And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.”

She confirmed the absolute statement that Maddow just made. She goes on to say she is monitoring the cases worldwide but doesn’t say that the vaccine will not allow others to get sick.

So, just to be clear: did you believe Walensky was making an absolute statement when you read the transcript or listened to the interview, or did it seem more conversational to you and not aimed at being precise?

At the moment in 2021 or right now? The answer for both is I never believed it. But that’s me. If you read it or watched it people could absolutely take it as an absolute statement.

For example, when she said "You know, we`re still losing people at 1,000 deaths a day.", did you believe that we were losing exactly 1,000 people per day?

Not the same example. This is guesstimating. The wording from both Maddow and Walensky were if your vaccinated you can’t get sick or spread it.

There's a difference between reading to understand and reading to attack. Which were you doing here?

Both I’m not attacking and I understand how people can take it as an absolute. You asked for a source of from the CDC Director and I provided it. You just did the “read to attack” to me with the classified information post, yet you didn’t provide the actual facts from each of the cases to make it look like I wasn’t being truthful. There is a difference in what I did and what you just did.

I have already talked about this topic ad nauseam, so I will bow out with a Bill Bur clip. I think it goes well with this post.


View: https://youtu.be/GZ3QHTpMZgQ

 

[One Brow]

At the moment in 2021 or right now? The answer for both is I never believed it. But that’s me. If you read it or watched it people could absolutely take it as an absolute statement.

People can take almost anything out of almost any statement. Most reasonable people realized this was not intended as an absolute statement.

Not the same example. This is guesstimating.

Within the same interview. To insist that one paragrpah is attempting precision, while two paragraphs later is guesstimating, does not seem like a reasonable position to me. YMMV.

... yet you didn’t provide the actual facts from each of the cases to make it look like I wasn’t being truthful. There is a difference in what I did and what you just did.

I don't think you were being untruthful in the discussion of classified files cases (perhaps suffering from confirmation bias a little). I asked for a specific example, and the examples you offered didn't quite fit, but I never thought you intended deceit.

I have already talked about this topic ad nauseam, so I will bow out with a Bill Bur clip. I think it goes well with this post.

I really don't want to discuss everything wrong with clip at this point. Maybe another day.

 

[Bucknutz]

I really don't want to discuss everything wrong with clip at this point. Maybe another day.

Please don’t, it’s not for dissecting. It’s for humor.

 

[Red]

Here’s hoping this does not become the next one…

The Bird Flu Outbreak Has Taken an Ominous Turn

The avian flu has killed millions of chickens, decimated wild birds—and moved into mammals. Now the poultry industry needs new measures to stop its spread.

www.wired.com

“To be clear, this does not yet include people. Although past decades have witnessed bird flu outbreaks that spread to humans, only two cases have been identified in the past 12 months: a Colorado adult last May, and a 9-year-old girl in Ecuador in January. (Neither died.) And there’s no evidence yet that the virus has been able to jump from newly infected mammals to people. But the fact that it was transmitted from bird to mammals, and then spread among them, indicates a disquieting trend.”

Bird flu alarm drives world towards once-shunned vaccines

More governments around the world are reconsidering their opposition to vaccines as culling birds or locking them inside has failed to prevent bird flu.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Bucknutz]

So another agency believes it was a lab leak. With low confidence.


View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1629814630259343362?s=12


The FBI believes it was a lab leak with moderate confidence. NIC believes it was a lab leak with low confidence. Just waiting on the CIA now.