Covid-19 Thread

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

belgium has bought 4 million worth of the vaccin remdesevir, and the WHO has reported that the vaccin doesn't work better than the placebo

lmfao, I can't believe people who blindly follow whatever the great pharma companies throw up. Some people really have no brain bigger than an eggshell

The problem is not really with big pharma (in this case Gilead Sciences who markets Remdesivir), but with regulatory bodies that approved Remdesivir against Covid-19 on insufficient grounds. At the same time, we have to consider the context here: Remdesivir was an already marketed treatment against some viral infections with known side effects (it wasn't a new drug that could potentially be dangerous) and with a likely effect against SARS-CoV-2, too, and the world was in dire need of a treatment against Covid-19. Still, in a perfect work it wouldn't have been approved. The good thing is that as soon as new data existed, its approval is being reversed.

[action]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 The good thing is that as soon as new data existed, its approval is being reversed.

this is always the get-out clause by science.

will the disabilities and brain damage that may be caused by vaccinations also be reversed?

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, action said:

this is always the get-out clause by science.

Scientific results are being looked at as part of the decision to approve a drug, but in the end it is regulatory bodies that make a decision regarding approval taking into account these results (or lack thereof) and society's need for a treatment. The decision is not made "by science", as you amusingly seem to think. Science is the process that gives us data. Science doesn't make decisions on whether a drug should be approved or not.

 

13 minutes ago, action said:

will the disabilities and brain damage that may be caused by vaccinations also be reversed?

Again, Remdesivir is an already approved drug used in treatments of other viral diseases. It is regarded as safe to use, even when used on Covid-19 patients. Sure, as with any other medicine it does come with side-effects, but you make it seem like an entirely new drug was approved for Covid-19. It wasn't. And the reason why the approval may be reversed is not unexpected side-effects, but more data suggesting it is not more efficient than placebo. This happens, but expect from countries spending millions on inefficient treatments, no damage is likely to have been done (Covid-19 patients being administered Remdesivir would also be subjected to other treatments). This is vastly different from approving a novel drug, where side-effect profile is largely unknown, which is intended to be used proactively as a vaccine on millions of healthy people.

But despite your best efforts you inadvertently actually raise an interesting question: Can patients suffering from side-effects from a drug that is later withdrawn from market demand compensation, and if so from whom (drug maker or regulatory bodies)? My arguments is that if the pharma companies has withheld results or distorted results, then they are liable; and if the regulators have approved something on insufficient grounds, they are liable. 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, action said:

will the disabilities and brain damage that may be caused by vaccinations also be reversed?

How many vaccinations have you had? Should we be worried?  

[DieselDaisy]

7 hours ago, There'sAHeavenAboveU said:

WTF kind of proof do you need, person who is also their own doctor? It's a physical barrier between your lungs and the outside world. Doesn't get much simpler than that. Also, there's this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/527015-mask-mandate-in-kansas-helped-slow-the-spread-of-covid-19-cdc-research

I was searching-for empiricism on a country's ratios diminishing as a direct consequence of the implementation of nationally stipulated facemask coverings. The upward curve should have been relinquished to a certain degree in all countries who've moved from liberal advice on usage to having adopted mandatory facemasks in community settings, yet I have not seen any decisive evidence pertaining to any downward curve, a ''correction'' to use market parlance: most countries merely have been hit with second waves! 

The United Kingdom should theoretically fulfil this case study as she (her government and scientific advisors) went from actively discouraging masks to a late degree during the first wave to swiftly u-turning, enforcing the implementation of public stipulations. Nothing! We are now stuck effectively in lockdown.

Enough scientists and doctors are also sceptical on their usage by the public so I'm not alone. I have literally heard people with MAs and PHDs in medical-science saying they're not only useless but ''detrimental' because the public use poor quality specimens, don't wear them correctly and/or gain the wrong psychology, i.e., ignoring sanitation. (A well known morning television doctor here did a utter volte-face, from calling them ''utterly useless objects'' and advising the public to ''avoid them'', to becoming a full-blown ''wear your mask'' mask fascist).

It is difficult for me therefore to not remain sceptical.

Further reading: https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-10-10-an-evidence-based-scientific-analysis-of-why-masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful/

 

5 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

Don't bother. You are wasting your brain cells

Thanks for the contribution.

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was searching-for empiricism on a country's ratios diminishing as a direct consequence of the implementation of nationally stipulated facemask coverings. The upward curve should have been relinquished to a certain degree in all countries who've moved from liberal advice on usage to having adopted mandatory facemasks in community settings, yet I have not seen any decisive evidence pertaining to any downward curve, a ''correction'' to use market parlance: most countries merely have been hit with second waves! 

You are as usual oversimplifying things. There can be no "decisive evidence" for this since it is impossible to obtain. In real life situations there are so many factors affecting the number of infected, that you cannot possibly conclude on the effect of one single mitigating factor unless you have control of all the others. And we don't. To give you an example, you claim that since we have been hit with a second wave, masks don't work, but you then fail to factor in how other mitigating factors have changed in this period (could people have become less good at social distancing for instance?), or the effect seasonal change may have on the spread of the virus (winter season seems to help spread many viruses so maybe a second wave was inevitable even with masks). In short -- and as you always do -- you look at things that support your opinions (-> face masks don't work) and disregard everything that ight challenge them. Highly un-intellectual and dishonest way to live your life. It is sad, really. 

And for the record, no one knows exactly what effect face masks have in actually reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. As other have also pointed out, as a physical barrier they definitely work, but then there are so much else that goes on which we don't really know enough about (does wearing a mask make your less careful about social distancing and hygiene? does wearing masks make people touch their faces more? etc). So we can't really say to what effect face masks help. But that they do have some effect, at least when worn properly, is without doubt. And that they aren't a perfect solutions, is also without any doubt.

Also see the link I sent you. Or take the opportunity to again disregard any info that actually challenges your opinions, even when you claim to actually want such information.

[SoulMonster]

43 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Further reading: https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-10-10-an-evidence-based-scientific-analysis-of-why-masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful/

I see your link to the musings of a cherry-picked physician on the Internet (who is an anti-vaxxer) and raise it with the summary of our current knowledge as presented by Nature: Face masks: what the data say (nature.com)

You are really debasing yourself, Diesel. Just imagine that at one time you actually had interesting things to say. These days you have become a Trump apologist, a far-right rebel, a supporter of conspiracy theories, and even your history posts have just become boring lists of often irrelevant dates and trivia. 

 

[ZoSoRose]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Thanks for the contribution.

 

When you continually show the inability to display critical thinking and reason, I think calling you out from time to time can be seen as a valid contribution

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, ZoSoRose said:

 

When you continually show the inability to display critical thinking and reason, I think calling you out from time to time can be seen as a valid contribution

I have just supplied evidence of critical thinking and reason in the above post. It was a much more thought-out and lengthy post than the ad hominem you supplied. Uncritical thinking, which is what you are accusing me of, would be blindly following the prevailing orthodoxy, of masks and lockdowns. 

[action]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have just supplied evidence of critical thinking and reason in the above post. It was a much more thought-out and lengthy post than the ad hominem you supplied. Uncritical thinking, which is what you are accusing me of, would be blindly following the prevailing orthodoxy, of masks and lockdowns. 

all he ever contributes to this thread is telling people to shut up, and he apparently thinks anyone with a different view is dumber than himself.

My advice, is putting him on ignore, like I did.

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, action said:

all he ever contributes to this thread is telling people to shut up, and he apparently thinks anyone with a different view is dumber than himself.

My advice, is putting him on ignore, like I did.

I have always quite liked him actually, Led Zep fandom aside, but he has went over to Orwellianism, as have many in the year 2020, and: it is what it is! You have to say something fairly repugnant, defamatory and/or completely fabricated to obtain a place on my ignore.

Unless he starts discussing Led Zeppelin too much!

Edited November 30, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[action]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have always quite liked him actually, Led Zep fandom aside, but he has went over to Orwellianism, as have many in the year 2020, and: it is what it is! You have to say something fairly repugnant, defamatory and/or completely fabricated to obtain a place on my ignore.

Unless he starts discussing Led Zeppelin too much!

zeppelin is not a fun band. it's studying. listening to zeppelin is like a job. it is what you do, you're not quite sure why you're doing it, but it sounds important and thus you just go with it hoping it will one day pay off.

that was, until I realised the plagiarism, poor lyrics and forced folk / tolkien elements

[soon]

The Conservative Party Canada leader, Erin O'Toole made bold statements that the Prime Minstrel screwed up and Canada wont be getting vaccines as fast as other countries. This claim, however, is categorically false. Reading this thread helps makes sense of why he'd think an easily refutable lie would play to his base.

The only truth to be gleaned from his typically hysterical right wing woo woo is that CPC leader Erin O'Toole hopes Canadians don't get access to vaccines because he cares about scoring political points in a bid to lead Canada more than he cares about the health, lives and livelihood's of Canadians.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, soon said:

The Conservative Party Canada leader, Erin O'Toole made bold statements that the Prime Minstrel screwed up and Canada wont be getting vaccines as fast as other countries. This claim, however, is categorically false. Reading this thread helps makes sense of why he'd think an easily refutable lie would play to his base.

The only truth to be gleaned from his typically hysterical right wing woo woo is that CPC leader Erin O'Toole hopes Canadians don't get access to vaccines because he cares about scoring political points in a bid to lead Canada more than he cares about the health, lives and livelihood's of Canadians.

Why do you demarcate covid responses by the ''left'' and ''right'' political spectrum? Britain's totalitarian covid response which has effectively destroyed the hospitality industry and seen some over zealous policing - scenes I certainly never thought I'd see on a British street - is being implemented by a right wing Conservative government, the same government behind Brexit! The Liberal Democrats, loony left (LGBT rights etc etc), are actually the only certifiable sceptics of this policy in the current Parliament. Furthermore, Sweden's liberal covid response is being led by a social democrat.

[soon]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why do you demarcate covid responses by the ''left'' and ''right'' political spectrum? Britain's totalitarian covid response which has effectively destroyed the hospitality industry and seen some over zealous policing - scenes I certainly never thought I'd see on a British street - is being implemented by a right wing Conservative government, the same government behind Brexit! The Liberal Democrats, loony left (LGBT rights etc etc), are actually the only certifiable sceptics of this policy in the current Parliament. Furthermore, Sweden's liberal covid response is being led by a social democrat.

What I actually commented on is that right wing idiots will believe O'Tooles lies. And its demonstrated by the nonsense embraced by the right wingers in this thread.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

What I actually commented on is that right wing idiots will believe O'Tooles lies. And its demonstrated by the nonsense embraced by the right wingers in this thread.

You seem to see left wing governments as the only providers of a totalitarian covid response (something you support) and right wing governments, the preserve of ineffective covid responses as well as covid deniers and anti-vaxers and so forth and the other free-thinking sceptics who you tend to pejoratively lump together in one category. This is demonstrably false. 

Heck, Merkel, whose covid response is seen as heavy-handed and effective, is a centre-right politician, the CDU (she is only in coalition with the genuine German left, the SDP). 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You seem to see left wing governments as the only providers of a totalitarian covid response (something you support) and right wing governments, the preserve of ineffective covid responses as well as covid deniers and anti-vaxers and so forth and the other free-thinking sceptics who you tend to pejoratively lump together in one category. This is demonstrably false. 

Heck, Merkel, whose covid response is seen as heavy-handed and effective, is a centre-right politician, the CDU (she is only in coalition with the genuine German left, the SDP). 

Again, my point is that a right wing politician is emboldened to tell covid lies because right wing idiots will lap it up. Again, as demonstrated by the right wingers in this thread.

The lie I mentioned was about access to a vaccine. You are talking about lock downs for some odd reason.

[ZoSoRose]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have just supplied evidence of critical thinking and reason in the above post. It was a much more thought-out and lengthy post than the ad hominem you supplied. Uncritical thinking, which is what you are accusing me of, would be blindly following the prevailing orthodoxy, of masks and lockdowns. 

Being a google expert does not provide you with critical thinking. Typing paragraphs of faux-intellectual garbage as you so often do does not make it correct. So good job at patting yourself on the back for a lengthy post

2 hours ago, action said:

all he ever contributes to this thread is telling people to shut up, and he apparently thinks anyone with a different view is dumber than himself.

My advice, is putting him on ignore, like I did.

What is wrong with calling out ignorant people with dangerous mindsets?

[ZoSoRose]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have always quite liked him actually, Led Zep fandom aside, but he has went over to Orwellianism, as have many in the year 2020, and: it is what it is! You have to say something fairly repugnant, defamatory and/or completely fabricated to obtain a place on my ignore.

Unless he starts discussing Led Zeppelin too much!

Thank you, Diesel. My patience this year for those that disagree with experts has dropped to a low. I do not understand how you genuinely don't see how these measures work. 

We locked down, cases plummeted in the summer. We opened up, they exploded in the fall. What more proof should there be?

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Being a google expert does not provide you with critical thinking. Typing paragraphs of faux-intellectual garbage as you so often do does not make it correct. So good job at patting yourself on the back for a lengthy post

Ad hominem asides, the trigger quote was: ''can somebody provide me with evidence that masks are not utterly useless''? This is not a claim of absolute correctness (how could it be?) although it certainly posits my own opinion that I indeed find them useless as worn by the general public for the reasons stated subsequently. 

It is a question which begins with ''can'' for crying out loud!

Maybe action was right afterall. Another lost cause.

[DieselDaisy]

16 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Thank you, Diesel. My patience this year for those that disagree with experts has dropped to a low. I do not understand how you genuinely don't see how these measures work. 

We locked down, cases plummeted in the summer. We opened up, they exploded in the fall. What more proof should there be?

 

 

What about experts who disagree with the experts you agree with? I have quoted statistics and data and scientific viewpoints on here before (usually ignored). What makes your experts superior to the experts I'm hearing? Most of these people have similar academic credentials (MA/PHD) and experience yet are arriving at completely different viewpoints!

Now you are discussing lockdowns. I have never doubted their effectuality as a temporary block on infections. My disagreement with lockdowns concern their affect on business closures, loss of democratic freedoms, police brutality, soaring unemployment, mental health issues, soaring suicide rates and curtailed medical procedures (and resulting deaths). I am balancing this with corona's death ration - what is it, 1-3 %?

Edited November 30, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[ZoSoRose]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Ad hominem asides, the trigger quote was: ''can somebody provide me with evidence that masks are not utterly useless''? This is not a claim of absolute correctness (how could it be?) although it certainly posits my own opinion that I indeed find them useless as worn by the general public for the reasons stated subsequently. 

It is a question which begins with ''can'' for crying out loud!

Maybe action was right afterall. Another lost cause.

Maybe I can better explain my views.

I don't think lockdowns are the long-term solution. The virus is too widespread, the world's population is too large. It could work (look at Victoria, parts of Asia, etc). But unless there was 100% compliance, otherwise a case pops up and it spreads again. 

I truly believe these vaccines are our way out and that is why I am pro lockdown. I believe they can lessen cases and deaths until we have a good distribution system in place. I think they are a tool, but not the only weapon. Without them, there is just too much death. 

[ZoSoRose]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

What about experts who disagree with the experts you agree with? I have quoted statistics and data and scientific viewpoints on here before (usually ignored). What makes your experts superior to the experts I'm hearing? Most of these people have similar academic credentials (MA/PHD) and experience yet are arriving at completely different viewpoints!

Now you are discussing lockdowns. I have never doubted their effectuality as a temporary block on infections. My disagreement with lockdowns concern their affect on business closures, loss of democratic freedoms, soaring unemployment, mental health issues, soaring suicide rates and curtailed medical procedures (and resulting deaths). I am balancing this with corona's death ration - what is it, 1-3 %?

In regards to your last paragraph, we share common ground. Proper social security measures need to be in place for individuals and businesses while we navigate lockdowns and wait for vaccine rollouts. 

1-3% is a crazy high amount when you take infection rate into account

Look, @action! I am kind of having a conversation... For now

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Maybe I can better explain my views.

I don't think lockdowns are the long-term solution. The virus is too widespread, the world's population is too large. It could work (look at Victoria, parts of Asia, etc). But unless there was 100% compliance, otherwise a case pops up and it spreads again. 

I truly believe these vaccines are our way out and that is why I am pro lockdown. I believe they can lessen cases and deaths until we have a good distribution system in place. I think they are a tool, but not the only weapon. Without them, there is just too much death. 

What about the deaths caused by homelessness, starvation and suicide as a consequence of business closures? Britain is literally trashing her entire hospitality sector - millions of jobs - for a disease which kills 1-3%?

What about the deaths caused by delayed medical check-ups and procedures? People have literally died or been given a terminal life span because their cancer operation has been delayed due to corona?

Why do you not care about these people?

Edited November 30, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[ZoSoRose]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

What about the deaths caused by homelessness, starvation and suicide as a consequence of business closures? Britain is literally trashing her entire hospitality sector - millions of jobs - for a disease which kills 1-3%?

What about the deaths caused by delayed medical check-ups and procedures? People have literally died or given a terminal life span because their cancer operation has been delayed due to corona?

Why do you not care about these people?

Of course I care about all of these people, but I don't think you are grasping a 1-3% mortality rate with the high infection rate. If there was no vaccine in site, we would be screwed and I wouldn't have strong views or answers tbh