A couple of things. First, if Ivermectin or any other drug like ground up iburprofin was found to be an effective treatment of Covid, goodby Emergency Use Authorizations.
The path to re-open is to re-open. Most people are not at a very high risk(see the post with the table on the prior page that contains the age related risk. The healthy and young are really at a very low risk. Those who are at risk should take the proper precautions. They can choose to vaccinate, wear masks, whatever they want. The risk of this is health related and highly age stratefied.
The frustrating thing is that we have known this FOR A YEAR! But Fear sells and fear gets people to comply with some rediculous stuff. The path to open is to open. Live your life. Life is a calculated risk. The meaning of life is not simply to survive. The time to live is now. Go out, and get fresh air. It is good for you.
On your first point -- I can't think of a situation where a drug approved for use was then de-authorized simply because other drugs for the same purpose became approved. On what grounds do you claim that the authorized vaccines would lose their emergency use authorization if we are lucky enough to find other drugs that also work?
On your second point, my reply is hopefully not too much of a tangent. Over the past year plus, you've made various claims and linked to studies. Other people, including myself, have made different claims and linked to different studies. I could argue that you're simply ignoring evidence to support your views, but I'm sure you feel the same. So, how do we choose what counts as actual evidence? It's not a simple or straightforward question, and arguably is one of the major questions of our era -- polarization is very high, and it feels like people are just choosing their own, conflicting realities and have their own, conflicting sources to back up their claims.
In general, we should look for contradictions and consistencies, right? We build up our world views through a process of accretion. Each new bit of knowledge we attempt to make fit what we already know. If it doesn't fit, we try really hard to see if we can make it consistent. Most often that looks like targeting the new bit of information -- can we reinterpret it so it makes sense to our existing views? If not, can we justify dismissing it? More rarely, we might find that it's actually some aspect of our existing views that we have to modify.
So I'll share with you why I tend to dismiss the evidence you cite rather than adjust my existing views, and so help you try and challenge me to change. Your last paragraph here: "The frustrating thing is that we have known this FOR A YEAR! But Fear sells and fear gets people to comply with some rediculous stuff," which I primarily interpret in the context of your long standing arguments against social distancing measures.
This suggests a few possibilities about the behavior of government authorities.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities did NOT know this -- the "we have know for a year" refers to people like, say, yourself, but excludes governmental officials. I'll be honest, I have a hard time finding this plausible. As I suspect this is not what you meant either, I won't spend much tine on it.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them anyway as a means of furthering their power. I find this implausible for several reasons. In the first place, if that was their plan it didn't work out very well. Gov. Newsom wouldn't be facing a recall election in California were it not for social distancing measures. These have been hugely polarizing in an already polarized environment, always bore the risk of endangering leader's hold on power, and in many cases clearly have weakened their power. If one is was looking to increase their power, there are a lot of far simpler, less risky ways to go about it. I suppose its possible that a handful of leaders just guess wrong what the consequences would be, but given how widespread, and across how many different types of political systems, social distancing mandates were enacted, for this scenario I'd have to believe that the majority of government leaders collectively became stupid about how power works.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them for financial gain. Economies took a major hit. Some companies did ok or even quite well, but this just doesn't seem like a plausible money-making move to me. You'd have to have a very good guess of which companies would actually do better under a hampered economy, your guess would have had to end up being correct, and you'd have to be in a position to actually benefit financially. I don't think just having stocks in a few companies would really be enough to make sense as a financial motive -- really, for this to be plausible, I think you'd really need some kind of direct kickback happening. And this would, again, have to be true for the majority of government leaders around the world, across very different political and economic systems.
None of these scenarios seem plausible to me, so it's a lot simpler to just dismiss your claims. But, now you have a clearer sense of my premises, so a better sense of what kind of argument and evidence you'd need to make to shift my thinking.
Wow. Comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust. Are you actually evil?
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a peice of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago
Quote in context:
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
"During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil."
I trust there's no argument as to which side of the line "comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust" falls.
On your first point -- I can't think of a situation where a drug approved for use was then de-authorized simply because other drugs for the same purpose became approved. On what grounds do you claim that the authorized vaccines would lose their emergency use authorization if we are lucky enough to find other drugs that also work?
On your second point, my reply is hopefully not too much of a tangent. Over the past year plus, you've made various claims and linked to studies. Other people, including myself, have made different claims and linked to different studies. I could argue that you're simply ignoring evidence to support your views, but I'm sure you feel the same. So, how do we choose what counts as actual evidence? It's not a simple or straightforward question, and arguably is one of the major questions of our era -- polarization is very high, and it feels like people are just choosing their own, conflicting realities and have their own, conflicting sources to back up their claims.
In general, we should look for contradictions and consistencies, right? We build up our word views through a process of accretion. Each new bit of knowledge we attempt to make fit what we already know. If it doesn't fit, we try really hard to see if we can make it consistent. Most often that looks like targeting the new bit of information -- can we reinterpret it so it makes sense to our existing views? If not, can we justify dismissing it? More rarely, we might find that it's actually some aspect of our existing views that we have to modify.
So I'll share with you why I tend to dismiss the evidence you cite rather than adjust my existing views, and so help you try and challenge me to change. Your last paragraph here: "The frustrating thing is that we have known this FOR A YEAR! But Fear sells and fear gets people to comply with some rediculous stuff," which I primarily interpret in the context of your long standing arguments against social distancing measures.
This suggests a few possibilities about the behavior of government authorities.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities did NOT know this -- the "we have know for a year" refers to people like, say, yourself, but excludes governmental officials. I'll be honest, I have a hard time finding this plausible. As I suspect this is not what you meant either, I won't spend much tine on it.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them anyway as a means of furthering their power. I find this implausible for several reasons. In the first place, if that was their plan it didn't work out very well. Gov. Newsom wouldn't be facing a recall election in California were it not for social distancing measures. These have been hugely polarizing in an already polarized environment, always bore the risk of endangering leader's hold on power, and in many cases clearly have weakened their power. If one is was looking to increase their power, there are a lot of far simpler, less risky ways to go about it. I suppose its possible that a handful of leaders just guess wrong what the consequences would be, but given how widespread, and across how many different types of political systems, social distancing mandates were enacted, for this scenario I'd have to believe that the majority of government leaders collectively became stupid about how power works.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them for financial gain. Economies took a major hit. Some companies did ok or even quite well, but this just doesn't seem like a plausible money-making move to me. You'd have to have a very good guess of which companies would actually do better under a hampered economy, your guess would have had to end up being correct, and you'd have to be in a position to actually benefit financially. I don't think just having stocks in a few companies would really be enough to make sense as a financial motive -- really, for this to be plausible, I think you'd really need some kind of direct kickback happening. And this would, again, have to be true for the majority of government leaders around the world, across very different political and economic systems.
None of these scenarios seem plausible to me, so it's a lot simpler to just dismiss your claims. But, now you have a clearer sense of my premises, so a better sense of what kind of argument and evidence you'd need to make to shift my thinking.
it's admirable that you are treating this argument respectfully and treating it as if it's worthy of rational discussion. But this is a person who obviously comes to his conclusion first and then scours the internet for any evidence that supports it. It's why contradictory evidence is ignored, and why even the shakiest supporting evidence is glommed onto. People who reason this way aren't likely to be persuaded by the likes of your argument.
and at its heart, the notion that vaccination programs are "my body, my choice" and should be based only on each individual person weighing his/her risk factors and potential benefits ignores an important reality. At this point, medical science is pretty clear on one thing (probably more clear on this than anything else) -- that disease elimination is a collective effort. It requires a critical mass of people to do all the things that limit disease transmission, including vaccination. Each of us doesn't get vaccinated solely to benefit ourselves. We get vaccinated for the good of everyone, so that the disease will be eliminated when there are too few vulnerable people to pass it to. Do we really need to revisit the elimination of smallpox from the world, the elimination of polio and measles in the U.S. for people to understand this? And if people are going around pursuing half-baked quackish alternatives, it just makes it more difficult for all of us to get an infectious disease under control. Fortunately most people do understand the need for us to work collectively to get to the other side of this pandemic, and the naysayers aren't going to prevent us from getting to the level of collective immunity to do that.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
"During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil."
I trust there's no argument as to which side of the line "comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust" falls.
is it really necessary to refute the accusation that trying to do the things necessary to stop the spread of an infectious disease is not at all the same as committing genocide?
Not a stupid question. The number of COVID deaths does sum correctly. But it's the other column that is different (number of total deaths).
80 year olds are generally more likely to die than children. So, if I divide COVID deaths by total deaths (the default column), you see the COVID death rate as a proportion of the death rate for each age, rather than of the proportion of population. It's another view.
Blort. I concentrated on the Covid deaths column and completely overlooked the total deaths column. Now I see: It’s a matter of how much likelier, because of Covid, ages are to die than they normally would be — not, as the chart in the tweet would have it, how much likelier, because of Covid, ages are to die period. Thanks for calling attention to that.
is it really necessary to refute the accusation that trying to do the things necessary to stop the spread of an infectious disease is not at all the same as committing genocide?
Apparently, and unfortunately, yes.
[Edited to add] And then they engage in short term "revisionist history" and deny what they said, when confronted in a "respectable" forum. Lying creeps.
Here is the original clip, where Greene directly compared the mask mandate to when Jews "were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany" — i.e. The Holocaust. pic.twitter.com/NPs9bJWhpy
What are all the white people who need to feel oppressed going to do without a mask mandate now?
we're going to be treated to lots of stories of people being "oppressed" when they find out there are places vaccinated people can go that the unvaccinated are not allowed.
Vaccinated sections at ballparks??
Oppression! Coercion! But mah freedom!!
Freedom I tell ya!
Look at the bright side.
Wow. Comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust. Are you actually evil?
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a peice of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago
What are all the white people who need to feel oppressed going to do without a mask mandate now?
we're going to be treated to lots of stories of people being "oppressed" when they find out there are places vaccinated people can go that the unvaccinated are not allowed.
Vaccinated sections at ballparks??
Oppression! Coercion! But mah freedom!!
Freedom I tell ya!
Look at the bright side.
Wow. Comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust. Are you actually evil?
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a peice of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago
is it really necessary to refute the accusation that trying to do the things necessary to stop the spread of an infectious disease is not at all the same as committing genocide?
Apparently, and unfortunately, yes.
[Edited to add] And then they engage in short term "revisionist history" and deny what they said, when confronted in a "respectable" forum. Lying creeps.
Why do media/news outlets even put her on the air? It gives her credibility. Ignore her.
What are all the white people who need to feel oppressed going to do without a mask mandate now?
we're going to be treated to lots of stories of people being "oppressed" when they find out there are places vaccinated people can go that the unvaccinated are not allowed.
While I agree with the general premise that based on what is presently known, it is safer for most of us to get the vaccine rather than not, I do question the phrase "trust the science" which I have seen repeated throughout this thread. It is precisely those people who have not trusted the current science but challenged it who have contributed so much to our quality of life and understanding of the world around us. How many people have you seen fall of the edge of our flat planet lately?
Thanks. I was waiting for the 2+2=5 take on science.
@terp 2 + 2 = 5 is not the correct formula for what I wrote. The more appropriate formula would be x + y = n, where x= present scientific knowledge; y=new developments based on anomalies that are identified over time; and n = the latest scientific findings. If y = 0, then, and only then does x = n.
No, it means that you are clearly arguing to create a lower class of citizen because they refuse to inject themselves with a substance that has emergency authorization simply because the authorities say it is a good idea.
It sucks when people put words in your mouth doesn't it?
Not as bad as when people try to comple one to inject experimental gene therapy into their & their children's bodies.
ah - ok. Still not someone I'd trust in the health field.
Merck - manufactures Ivermectin - here's their statement on it's use for Covid:
KENILWORTH, N.J., Feb. 4, 2021 – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
Not as bad as when people try to comple one to inject experimental gene therapy into their & their children's bodies.
At this point everyone's getting vaccinated. The choice is whether you want it to happen via a controlled dose that stimulates your body's immune system without actually exposing you to the virus, or whether you prefer to have it happen suddenly and unexpectedly with an uncontrolled dose of live virus. Both, of course, carry risks, but the latter approach has a much, much higher risk of severe and even fatal side effects.
@terp 2 + 2 = 5 is not the correct formula for what I wrote. The more appropriate formula would be x + y = n, where x= present scientific knowledge; y=new developments based on anomalies that are identified over time; and n = the latest scientific findings. If y = 0, then, and only then does x = n.
I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Your behavior and the behavior of your apple polishers was an outright embarrassment on the 2+2=5 thread.
At this point everyone's getting vaccinated. The choice is whether you want it to happen via a controlled dose that stimulates your body's immune system without actually exposing you to the virus, or whether you prefer to have it happen suddenly and unexpectedly with an uncontrolled dose of live virus. Both, of course, carry risks, but the latter approach has a much, much higher risk of severe and even fatal side effects.
more pertinent is that the vaccine is not "gene therapy".
more pertinent is that the vaccine is not "gene therapy".
Yeah, I don't know what he meant by "gene therapy." I've read that some people are under the impression that the mRNA vaccines change your DNA. They don't -- the mRNA is just the code for the virus's spike protein, so your immune system can recognize it, and the mRNA itself disintegrate pretty quickly. So if that's his concern, the good news is that's one less thing to worry about as "changing your genetic code" is not something these vaccines do.
But to my point, I think it's important to really understand the risk profile here. Given the prevalence of the virus, the only two actual scenarios are you take the vaccine, or you get the actual virus. So while I absolutely encourage and support being informed of the risks of any medication, including vaccines, it's important to keep in mind that the alternative is getting the virus, which has killed millions and given millions more devastating long term side effects.
Yeah, I don't know what he meant by "gene therapy." I've read that some people are under the impression that the mRNA vaccines change your DNA. They don't -- the mRNA is just the code for the virus's spike protein, so your immune system can recognize it, and the mRNA itself disintegrate pretty quickly. So if that's his concern, the good news is that's one less thing to worry about as "changing your genetic code" is not something these vaccines do.
But to my point, I think it's important to really understand the risk profile here. Given the prevalence of the virus, the only two actual scenarios are you take the vaccine, or you get the actual virus. So while I absolutely encourage and support being informed of the risks of any medication, including vaccines, it's important to keep in mind that the alternative is getting the virus, which has killed millions and given millions more devastating long term side effects.
I get your point. But you're responding to someone who isn't sharing your reality.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
"During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil."
I trust there's no argument as to which side of the line "comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust" falls.
is it really necessary to refute the accusation that trying to do the things necessary to stop the spread of an infectious disease is not at all the same as committing genocide?
Is that really what I was doing? Or was I saying that you would comply with authority against an out group. Use Stalin's Russia if you prefer.
You defer to authority and show no empathy for the outgroup. This is a consistent theme. There is never a chance that they may have a different perspective or may even have a point. You seem at best comfortable with them having their rights & priveledges infringed or even experiencing harm. Posts of this nature are not limited to this thread, but there are examples on this thread.
There are couple of a people who post on MOL that I'd suspect might be unvaccinated and will go maskless in public indoor spaces.
The notion that people will honestly follow the guidelines after all we've seen this past year is sheer insanity. I guess those of us who are vaccinated should just say **** those people if they infect each other.
Unfortunately they will almost certainly infect a few unfortunate folks among the vaccinated.
The frustrating thing about the article is that there is no mention of what specific types of people turned masks into a point of contention. We all know it was generally white conservatives and especially Trumpers. It's typically right wingers who don't believe in actions to support the common good.
But the NYT won't call out that obvious fact
we're going to be treated to lots of stories of people being "oppressed" when they find out there are places vaccinated people can go that the unvaccinated are not allowed.
Vaccinated sections at ballparks??
Oppression! Coercion! But mah freedom!!
Freedom I tell ya!
And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?
Yeah, I don't know what he meant by "gene therapy." I've read that some people are under the impression that the mRNA vaccines change your DNA. They don't -- the mRNA is just the code for the virus's spike protein, so your immune system can recognize it, and the mRNA itself disintegrate pretty quickly. So if that's his concern, the good news is that's one less thing to worry about as "changing your genetic code" is not something these vaccines do.
But to my point, I think it's important to really understand the risk profile here. Given the prevalence of the virus, the only two actual scenarios are you take the vaccine, or you get the actual virus. So while I absolutely encourage and support being informed of the risks of any medication, including vaccines, it's important to keep in mind that the alternative is getting the virus, which has killed millions and given millions more devastating long term side effects.
I get your point. But you're responding to someone who isn't sharing your reality.
The mRNA vaccines send instructions to your cells to produce the spike protien. I will use the term the inventor uses "genetic vaccines". It is not true that the mRNA disintegrates quickly.
The guy on the left is one of the inventors of mRNA vaccines. He has been vaccinated, and to his concern his daughters recieved the vaccine. He said he would try to prevent them from getting the vaccine if he knew then what he knows now.
@terp 2 + 2 = 5 is not the correct formula for what I wrote. The more appropriate formula would be x + y = n, where x= present scientific knowledge; y=new developments based on anomalies that are identified over time; and n = the latest scientific findings. If y = 0, then, and only then does x = n.
I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Your behavior and the behavior of your apple polishers was an outright embarrassment on the 2+2=5 thread.
It couldn’t possibly have been more embarrassing than this reply to Joan Crystal.
Not as bad as when people try to comple one to inject experimental gene therapy into their & their children's bodies.
At this point everyone's getting vaccinated. The choice is whether you want it to happen via a controlled dose that stimulates your body's immune system without actually exposing you to the virus, or whether you prefer to have it happen suddenly and unexpectedly with an uncontrolled dose of live virus. Both, of course, carry risks, but the latter approach has a much, much higher risk of severe and even fatal side effects.
This is not true. There are issues with myocarditis after getting these vaccines especially in youger men. These young men, if healthy, have very little risk from contracting Covid.
@terp 2 + 2 = 5 is not the correct formula for what I wrote. The more appropriate formula would be x + y = n, where x= present scientific knowledge; y=new developments based on anomalies that are identified over time; and n = the latest scientific findings. If y = 0, then, and only then does x = n.
I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Your behavior and the behavior of your apple polishers was an outright embarrassment on the 2+2=5 thread.
It couldn’t possibly have been more embarrassing than this reply to Joan Crystal.
Maybe you should go back and check the grammer on that thread.
On your first point -- I can't think of a situation where a drug approved for use was then de-authorized simply because other drugs for the same purpose became approved. On what grounds do you claim that the authorized vaccines would lose their emergency use authorization if we are lucky enough to find other drugs that also work?
On your second point, my reply is hopefully not too much of a tangent. Over the past year plus, you've made various claims and linked to studies. Other people, including myself, have made different claims and linked to different studies. I could argue that you're simply ignoring evidence to support your views, but I'm sure you feel the same. So, how do we choose what counts as actual evidence? It's not a simple or straightforward question, and arguably is one of the major questions of our era -- polarization is very high, and it feels like people are just choosing their own, conflicting realities and have their own, conflicting sources to back up their claims.
In general, we should look for contradictions and consistencies, right? We build up our world views through a process of accretion. Each new bit of knowledge we attempt to make fit what we already know. If it doesn't fit, we try really hard to see if we can make it consistent. Most often that looks like targeting the new bit of information -- can we reinterpret it so it makes sense to our existing views? If not, can we justify dismissing it? More rarely, we might find that it's actually some aspect of our existing views that we have to modify.
So I'll share with you why I tend to dismiss the evidence you cite rather than adjust my existing views, and so help you try and challenge me to change. Your last paragraph here: "The frustrating thing is that we have known this FOR A YEAR! But Fear sells and fear gets people to comply with some rediculous stuff," which I primarily interpret in the context of your long standing arguments against social distancing measures.
This suggests a few possibilities about the behavior of government authorities.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities did NOT know this -- the "we have know for a year" refers to people like, say, yourself, but excludes governmental officials. I'll be honest, I have a hard time finding this plausible. As I suspect this is not what you meant either, I won't spend much tine on it.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them anyway as a means of furthering their power. I find this implausible for several reasons. In the first place, if that was their plan it didn't work out very well. Gov. Newsom wouldn't be facing a recall election in California were it not for social distancing measures. These have been hugely polarizing in an already polarized environment, always bore the risk of endangering leader's hold on power, and in many cases clearly have weakened their power. If one is was looking to increase their power, there are a lot of far simpler, less risky ways to go about it. I suppose its possible that a handful of leaders just guess wrong what the consequences would be, but given how widespread, and across how many different types of political systems, social distancing mandates were enacted, for this scenario I'd have to believe that the majority of government leaders collectively became stupid about how power works.
- Social distancing measures were not needed, but government authorities imposed them for financial gain. Economies took a major hit. Some companies did ok or even quite well, but this just doesn't seem like a plausible money-making move to me. You'd have to have a very good guess of which companies would actually do better under a hampered economy, your guess would have had to end up being correct, and you'd have to be in a position to actually benefit financially. I don't think just having stocks in a few companies would really be enough to make sense as a financial motive -- really, for this to be plausible, I think you'd really need some kind of direct kickback happening. And this would, again, have to be true for the majority of government leaders around the world, across very different political and economic systems.
None of these scenarios seem plausible to me, so it's a lot simpler to just dismiss your claims. But, now you have a clearer sense of my premises, so a better sense of what kind of argument and evidence you'd need to make to shift my thinking.