Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Unfortunately, I think you’re probably right. Visual depiction of COVID discourse over the next week:

9578B520-5F41-47F5-8955-BB6EFDB60DB7.gif.3b4779e18bbaff4e23b8ebf74b854cc3.gif

Yeah, probably... also... 14 days to flatten the curve?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

A longish article about COVID and the vaccine with data where possible and without spin or political leanings best I can tell.  

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/08/23/lets_stop_pretending_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

Thanks for posting this. Nice to see someone rationally explaining their viewpoint for a change. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 1:48 PM, dogfish78 said:

This post did NOT age well 🤡

How exactly? The media are still blowing things out of proportion, the don't trust the gubment people are getting sick in droves, and states are largely being left alone to make the rules their constituents want. 
 

Is it surprising to literally anyone that California and New York are the first places talking about vaccine passports? It's almost like that's exactly the type of onerous government the majority of people in those states want. 
 

If dreadlocks California man hates nanny state policies so much, perhaps he should vote with his feet and move to one of the many states that is handling this reasonably. And after that maybe he should reflect on why he ever lived in California in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FlyingWolf said:

Yeah, probably... also... 14 days to flatten the curve?

Ironically, people in science overwhelmingly did not believe or tout that stance. 14 days to flatten the curve was an uninformed political viewpoint only that was shared, to everyone’s detriment, primarily on social media. It’s feel good mumbo jumbo that both political sides got entirely wrong and are now using idiotically. Science didn’t.

For proof, I posted this scientific paper back in March 2020 that showed it was impossible, and always will be impossible, to ever “flatten the curve” in a timeline of weeks:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Jm0O4FAAHk7WfglUHriN3VuzIjrrcg3wY96ZtEK5XcLl5aPTesMbXZR4

Page 8 shows that best case with case isolation and social distancing, Britain would still exceed their surge ICU capacity by nearly 10 times. Page 10 shows that social distancing efforts would only last so long before things blow up in… Dec 2020.

”Flattening the Curve” was never pushed by science. You’re being propagandized.

Edit: took out condescending sentence, my b.

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Ironically, people in science overwhelmingly did not believe or tout that stance. 14 days to flatten the curve was an uninformed political viewpoint only that was shared, to everyone’s detriment, primarily on social media. It’s feel good mumbo jumbo that both political sides got entirely wrong and are now using idiotically. Science didn’t.

For proof, I posted this scientific paper back in March 2020 that showed it was impossible, and always will be impossible, to ever “flatten the curve” in a timeline of weeks:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Jm0O4FAAHk7WfglUHriN3VuzIjrrcg3wY96ZtEK5XcLl5aPTesMbXZR4

Doubt you’ll read so I’ll summarize. Page 8 shows that best case with case isolation and social distancing, Britain would still exceed their surge ICU capacity by nearly 10 times. Page 10 shows that social distancing efforts would only last so long before things blow up in… Dec 2020.

”Flattening the Curve” was never pushed by science. You’re being propagandized.

Not to mention "flattening the curve" as a course of action never meant "two weeks and Covid will disappear".  It was designed to spread the inevitable infections out in time so as not to overwhelm the health care system.  Which I would say was moderately successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Not to mention "flattening the curve" as a course of action never meant "two weeks and Covid will disappear".  It was designed to spread the inevitable infections out in time so as not to overwhelm the health care system.  Which I would say was moderately successful.

From what I recall the volume of cases was always to be the same, just hte timing spread out over time.  Either way, most sold the notion that 2 weeks to flatten the curve and Covid will start to wane.

 

Here we are 18 months later and we are in the 3rd wave.  The last 2 were higher than the 1st.  Unfortunately what nobody will really admit is that Covid is not going away and we are to deal with it.  It would be good to also broadcast that personnel health is your own responsibility and instead of hiding out eating cheetos, the US should focus on losing weight and being a healthier society.

 

My 4 yr old loves Wall-E, its on every other day.  Its sad that it is becoming our reality.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

”Flattening the Curve” was never pushed by science. You’re being propagandized.

Being pedantic here... I agree. Science doesn't push anything really, people do. Science is a method and a body of evidence.  A lot of people sure did claim the moniker of "science" in their political BS though.

 

I actually really appreciate the study and wish I had seen it sooner in all this.  I think the mitigation/suppression framing should have been part of the discussion all along, with empirically based analysis informing our inherently values-based public policy... out in the open... with leaders being particular about the science and the values informing their decisions... the humility to admit the huge data quality limitations... and the courage to defend values outside of simplistic "if it saves one life" first-order-effect focused demagoguery.

 

 

Edited by FlyingWolf
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, FlyingWolf said:

I think the mitigation/suppression framing should have been part of the discussion all along, with empirically based analysis informing our inherently values-based public policy... out in the open... with leaders being particular about the science and the values informing their decisions... the humility to admit the huge data quality limitations... and the courage to defend values outside of simplistic "if it saves one life" first-order-effect focused demagoguery.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about an explanation of that VAERS data? An explanatory document written by the FDA of the data reported AE to date? I would gladly share this with people who are on the fence but to date the only response I’ve got/articles I’ve just say correlation≠ causation. End of story. No deeper dive…? 

Also what about that natural immunity tho? Still on the search for evidence of benefit of vaccinating previously infected people. 

also why is the PCR test EUA being revoked in December? (Please no news articles.) How reliable are the PCR tests compared to Sanger DNA sequencing? 

Feels like the fence people are sitting on is legitimate no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:

What about an explanation of that VAERS data? An explanatory document written by the FDA of the data reported AE to date? I would gladly share this with people who are on the fence but to date the only response I’ve got/articles I’ve just say correlation≠ causation. End of story. No deeper dive…? 

Also what about that natural immunity tho? Still on the search for evidence of benefit of vaccinating previously infected people. 

also why is the PCR test EUA being revoked in December? (Please no news articles.) How reliable are the PCR tests compared to Sanger DNA sequencing? 

Feels like the fence people are sitting on is legitimate no?

Can't help with the VAERS data, other than that it's self-reported, which leads to some wild inconsistencies in the raw data.  CDC doesn't use it alone as a decision making tool...it's a canary in a coal mine to show when something may need further study.

As for natural immunity - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
 

Quote

Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, pawnman said:

Can't help with the VAERS data, other than that it's self-reported, which leads to some wild inconsistencies in the raw data.  CDC doesn't use it alone as a decision making tool...it's a canary in a coal mine to show when something may need further study.

As for natural immunity - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
 

 

At what point is the “canary” dead?

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality


 

55EB581F-2D67-4272-853F-E53CAA210F6C.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think you understand the people who are choosing not to get the vaccines point. I haven’t heard anyone complain about the survival rate. I have heard people bring up that it’s not approved but not as their main point. So while the discussion points may be less now because it’s approved I hardly think the goal has changed.

If you had to state the people who don’t want the vaccines opinions, what would you say it is? Put the shoes on the other foot for a second and just indulge me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think you understand the people who are choosing not to get the vaccines point. I haven’t heard anyone complain about the survival rate. I have heard people bring up that it’s not approved but not as their main point. So while the discussion points may be less now because it’s approved I hardly think the goal has changed.

If you had to state the people who don’t want the vaccines opinions, what would you say it is? Put the shoes on the other foot for a second and just indulge me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the vaccine mandate that was laid out for the DoD my understanding is that mil members will have to get a vaccine once it receives FDA approval. Now that Pfizer has approval that should be the only COVID vaccine members are required to get. Does that check or am I out to lunch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I don’t think you understand the people who are choosing not to get the vaccines point. I haven’t heard anyone complain about the survival rate. I have heard people bring up that it’s not approved but not as their main point. So while the discussion points may be less now because it’s approved I hardly think the goal has changed.

If you had to state the people who don’t want the vaccines opinions, what would you say it is? Put the shoes on the other foot for a second and just indulge me.

Mostly "It's not tested" (it is).

We don't know the long-term effects (most vaccine side-effects happen within the first two weeks.  It's extremely rare for a vaccine to have a side-effect years later).

"I shouldn't be forced to do something I don't want to do" (One wonders if these people pay taxes, obey traffic laws, or especially in the military, pitch this kind of fit over flu shots every year)

"The vaccine doesn't do anything" (even though it's been shown that breakthrough infections are rare, infection rates among the unvaccinated are far higher, and that vaccines have been shown to decrease the severity and length of Covid symptoms)

"I don't trust the FDA and CDC" (So...I guess these folks are growing their own food in their backyard?)

"I've done my research" (I hardly think that the five YouTube videos you watched from a doctor with a revoked license is "research" on the scale of a $6.5 billion organization staffed with people who have studied viral infections for a decade, but hell, maybe these people have their own microbiology lab set up in the garage I don't know about).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RedEye1911 said:

I haven't gotten this in my email yet, but it looks real to me.

Time to sit back and see who fights it and what happens.

This should be different from the Anthrax fight.  I understand the military has the authority now that the vaccine is approved but there are some serious issues that need to be addressed.  What if a person has already had COVID and has natural immunity?  I am sure there will be some who stand on principle and it will lead to some court cases...sadly those members will sacrifice their careers regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood...that is what I think will be some unresolved legal ground.


I agree and this is where I have the issue as well.

Simply stated…What does the vaccine do? The vaccine makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

What happens when you get COVID and recover? The virus makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

If you have never had Covid, I would encourage you to consider getting vaccinated for all the reasons Pawnman stated.

If you have had Covid I believe there should be some sort of antibody test you can take to opt out if you desire.

It’s a simple concept, I don’t know why it’s not a provision. My buddy at an airline recently flew with a guy who will likely lose his job because he will not get vaccinated.

However, this individual has already had Covid. If his antibody levels (or whatever they measure) are the same or better as someone who’s had the vaccine…then they are going to lose a pilot for no reason other than an arbitrary mandate that lacks any common sense or critical thought.

That’s all, i have to go back to tending livestock in my backyard farm. Stupid FDA…
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scooter14 said:

 


I agree and this is where I have the issue as well.

Simply stated…What does the vaccine do? The vaccine makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

What happens when you get COVID and recover? The virus makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

If you have never had Covid, I would encourage you to consider getting vaccinated for all the reasons Pawnman stated.

If you have had Covid I believe there should be some sort of antibody test you can take to opt out if you desire.

It’s a simple concept, I don’t know why it’s not a provision. My buddy at an airline recently flew with a guy who will likely lose his job because he will not get vaccinated.

However, this individual has already had Covid. If his antibody levels (or whatever they measure) are the same or better as someone who’s had the vaccine…then they are going to lose a pilot for no reason other than an arbitrary mandate that lacks any common sense or critical thought.

That’s all, i have to go back to tending livestock in my backyard farm. Stupid FDA…

 

I don't think it's quite that simple though. Having covid definitely gives you some immunity in the short term just like the vaccine. But this pandemic has been going for a year and a half and there are people who caught covid early whose T cell immunity is definitely tapering off. 
 

Having covid is once is not a lifetime golden ticket to never having to worry about this again. And neither is the vaccine. That isn't how any of this works. Immunity tapers off over time and new variants emerge which is why you can catch seasonal flu every year if you aren't careful. 
 

The other problem is that people grossly over self-report having covid. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who say something like "yeah I had the sniffles last March and my bunghole felt weird, I probably had it already". Relying on self reported covid is not a good way for a company to run their employee health program. 
 

So at a basic level, yes you are right. Getting covid and getting the vaccine accomplish the same thing as far as immunity. But for both, we don't know exactly how long that immunity lasts or how durable it is for future variants and relying on someone to self report their immunity is about as unreliable as it gets. Companies are always going to air on the side of caution and when you have a safe, fully approved vaccine, I don't think requiring that is some dystopian overreach. Do airlines require other vaccines? Yearly flu shots?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scooter14 said:

 


I agree and this is where I have the issue as well.

Simply stated…What does the vaccine do? The vaccine makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

What happens when you get COVID and recover? The virus makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.

If you have never had Covid, I would encourage you to consider getting vaccinated for all the reasons Pawnman stated.

If you have had Covid I believe there should be some sort of antibody test you can take to opt out if you desire.

It’s a simple concept, I don’t know why it’s not a provision. My buddy at an airline recently flew with a guy who will likely lose his job because he will not get vaccinated.

However, this individual has already had Covid. If his antibody levels (or whatever they measure) are the same or better as someone who’s had the vaccine…then they are going to lose a pilot for no reason other than an arbitrary mandate that lacks any common sense or critical thought.

That’s all, i have to go back to tending livestock in my backyard farm. Stupid FDA…

 

Do I need to post the CDC's Kentucky study again?

If you're unvaccinated, and you had Covid once already, you're still more than twice as likely to get Covid again as someone who got Covid and then got vaccinated.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Do I need to post the CDC's Kentucky study again?

If you're unvaccinated, and you had Covid once already, you're still more than twice as likely to get Covid again as someone who got Covid and then got vaccinated.

I think when unvaxxed people start re-catching it, that will massively change the way people think about covid. Right now there's a chicken pox-esque "had it once so I'm good" mentality which is completely incorrect. 
 

Similarly I think we are about to see an uptick in breakthrough cases among the vaccinated as we near the 6 month point from the first shots and that immunity tapers off over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...