I still have a neighbor who insists Covid goes through walls, pipes, closed windows, etc. I looked up transmission in apartment buildings, the conditions in the studies are not the same as in our situation, one was due to having a ventilation pipe that was shared and no bathroom windows. He is on the 2nd floor. He thinks someone standing 10 feet in front of the building will give him covid, even with his windows closed...
people do believe bizarre things...sure its not 100% impossible.....but people have to live and function.
The younger and healthier a person is the higher the risk of a vaccine side effect becomes against the risk of the actual virus. For example, a healthy child's immune system offers more protection than the pharmaceutical companies claims regarding vaccine effectiveness.
horsesh!t. truly horsesh!t
Terp: Can you cite one reputable source to back up these comments?
The younger and healthier a person is the higher the risk of a vaccine side effect becomes against the risk of the actual virus. For example, a healthy child's immune system offers more protection than the pharmaceutical companies claims regarding vaccine effectiveness.
horsesh!t. truly horsesh!t
Terp: Can you cite one reputable source to back up these comments?
Sure.
did you mean to post a different chart?
What is that chart from? Is the intended implication that the lowest bars mean the most natural protection from the virus?
If so, then the chart seems to indicate that the second lowest bars (second most natural protection) would be for those over 85 years old... which does not align with the understanding around this virus.
Interesting... and the full image had some footnotes that are cropped off Terp's version. I'm doubting he cropped them off himself (although, I guess it's possible). Now I'm curious, what source was he using?
He made sense about one thing. Using the track record of traditional vaccines to defend the safety of mRNA vaccines is what some might call a failure to analogize.
I'm also sure that people have looked into the studies of ivermectin which is a 50 year old treatment with an impressive saftety track record. I'm sure people have seen the studies that show how effective this treatment seems to be in Africa. Maybe we could offer this as another profilactic option for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines? Nah. Where is the moral superiority in all that
I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. Please stop watching YouTube.
I'm also sure that people have looked into the studies of ivermectin which is a 50 year old treatment with an impressive saftety track record. I'm sure people have seen the studies that show how effective this treatment seems to be in Africa. Maybe we could offer this as another profilactic option for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines? Nah. Where is the moral superiority in all that
I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. Please stop watching YouTube.
so I Google ivermectin because I haven't heard of it, and I want to learn if I'm unaware of important information that I need to know. And then I see the results and I don't feel educated. I feel duped. Fool me twice and all that.
Interesting... and the full image had some footnotes that are cropped off Terp's version. I'm doubting he cropped them off himself (although, I guess it's possible). Now I'm curious, what source was he using?
the thing about the chart is that it doesn't prove the point. If I tell you being vaccinated is riskier than being infected and only show the negative outcomes for infection I haven't answered the question.
I'm also sure that people have looked into the studies of ivermectin which is a 50 year old treatment with an impressive saftety track record. I'm sure people have seen the studies that show how effective this treatment seems to be in Africa. Maybe we could offer this as another profilactic option for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines? Nah. Where is the moral superiority in all that
I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. Please stop watching YouTube.
The glancing sarcasm, rather than simple declarative statements, make it impossible to tell what he is saying let alone whether he is joking.
The Polio vaccine did not cause the problem he alludes to. In the past, some Polio doses were inadvertently contaminated with the virus he mentions. There's no intrinsic danger from Polio vaccines. They are safe and still in use.
Re that Rota thing he mentions, it's consistent with the CDC item I posted before that when a vaccine has problems, the problem usually manifests early. Some infants developed the Rota problem "soon after" the drug was licensed in August 1998. And the problem was pretty small scale. The CDC estimated that one or two additional cases of the bad side effect would be caused among each 10,000 infants vaccinated with RotaShield vaccine. The drug was taken off the market because there was a simpler effective alternative treatment for the condition the drug was used for.
And please, "brand new" is not an accurate characterization of drugs that tens of thousands of people have been taking since March of 2020, ratcheting up, over the course of the next year plus, to an astonishing 1.4 billion people.
Terp, here is the exact quote from the CDC website. The key words are "Still Learning." Being an anti-vaxxer, anti-masker does not make someone an infectious disease expert.
We Are Still Learning
We are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not have symptoms. Early data show that vaccines help keep people with no symptoms from spreading COVID-19.
We are also still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines protect people.
We are still learning how many people have to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before the population can be considered protected (population immunity).
We are still learning how effective the vaccines are against new variants of the virus that causes COVID-19.
And who in the anti-CDC chorus has been consitently right about any aspect of this? How quickly they forget.
Remember, early on, how the deniers and down players of the disease cited rank amateurs, like that shmuck law professor from NYU who said there would only be 5000 deaths even without social distancing measures, to show how minimal the impact of Covid would be? How they mocked people who projected hundreds of thousands of deaths? The same crowd doesn't talk about Sweden anymore, since its long been clear that Sweden's numbers are multiples worse than all of its surrounding neighbors. Did Trump get it right? It's just gonna go away by itself?
While vaccines in general have been incredibly beneficial, like any medicine they have risks. See the SV40 virus introduced by the Polio vaccine, or the Rotashield vaccine. And what of these mRNA vaccines. Are they really the same thing? I don't think they are. These things are brand new. I'm sure all here have looked at all the previously approved Moderna treatments and have investigated the outcomes of their prior attempts.
I'm also sure that people have looked into the studies of ivermectin which is a 50 year old treatment with an impressive saftety track record. I'm sure people have seen the studies that show how effective this treatment seems to be in Africa. Maybe we could offer this as another profilactic option for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines? Nah. Where is the moral superiority in all that?
But the NIH says that there are no large scale studies that show ivermectin's effectiveness. I'm sure you all have looked into how a safe, widely available, effective treatment to a disease might effect the emergency approval of vaccines.
I'm sure you all know that there is tremendous amount of money being made. What do you think? Is there a financial incentive to offer shots even to those previously infected with the actual virus? Nah. People aren't motivated by that! This won't have any effect whatsoever on how many boosters people will need.
You are right that all medication has risks, but as I noted in an earlier post, unless one is planning to indefinitely social distance, the correct comparison is the risk of side effects from a vaccine vs the risk of severe outcomes from exposure to the coronavirus. And on that measure, exposure to covid is clearly much riskier. I don't see any particular reason to believe the mRNA vaccines would be riskier, but in the US the J&J vaccine seems like a good choice for people with concerns here?
I'm not sure what concerns you have over possible long term side effects -- we've been running tests on the vaccines in use for around a year at this point, which seems sufficient time?
I hadn't heard of ivermectin before, but googling it shows it for treatment of parasites -- I suppose it's possible it could have a side effect of helping with covid, but I'm not sure why we should prefer that over a medication that directly promotes a successful immune response to covid.
As for motivations, unfortunately the coronavirus, like all viruses, is playing quite coy and won't even definitely answer if it's strictly "alive," much less what motivates it.
I suppose it's possible it could have a side effect of helping with covid, but I'm not sure why we should prefer that over a medication that directly promotes a successful immune response to covid.
I think the answer to your implied question is the way terp couched his mention of ivermectin as a prophylactic option: “for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines.”
Since we’re not so good at critical thinking, I guess the “seems to be” part of terp’s comment, which he applies to treatment and not prevention anyway, was meant to fly right past us.
I suppose it's possible it could have a side effect of helping with covid, but I'm not sure why we should prefer that over a medication that directly promotes a successful immune response to covid.
I think the answer to your implied question is that terp couched his mention of ivermectin as a prophylactic option in these terms: “for those who are hesitant to take these new vaccines.”
Since we’re not so good at critical thinking, I guess the “seems to be” part of terp’s comment, which he applies to treatment and not prevention anyway, was meant to fly right past us.
all I needed to see was one article that stated ivermectin should only be given in clinical trials to COVID patients because the necessary level dosage to treat the virus could be toxic.
if we're talking about diligent risk assessment, that statement alone would deter me from using ivermectin instead of a vaccine which has been given to hundreds of millions of people with vanishingly small numbers of serious side effects.
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.14,15 Even though ivermectin appears to accumulate in the lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.16-19 Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters. However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.20
Per the NJ data hub only 556 cases today and a TR of .59. Shots in arms shots in arms shots in arms. . .
it's interesting to go back and see the full context of Walensky's "impending doom" pronouncement. It was only six weeks ago, but it was in the midst of another increase in daily infections. There were terrible surges in Michigan, NY, and NJ.
The U.S. surpassed 30 million COVID-19 cases on Thursday. She said the 7-day average is hovering between 60,000 and 70,000 cases -- a 10% increase -- and deaths are up about 3%, to 1,000 per day.
what happened since? a lot of people were vaccinated.
and what did Fauci say recently to George Stephanopoulos?
"I hope that next Mother’s Day, we’re going to see a dramatic difference than what we’re seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can. And there’s some conditions to that, George," Fauci said during the segment. "We’ve got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated."
again, the caveat is getting people vaccinated. And the recent relaxing of mask guidelines notwithstanding, we are not back to normal yet. And we won't be for some time. Will it be next Mother's Day, or sooner? Who knows? Fauci is not a clairvoyant. None of us is. But there's nothing strange about what he said, given that his prediction is based on current projections of vaccinations.
a halfway intelligent person who is sincerely trying to be informed shouldn't find any of this confusing.
and what did Fauci say recently to George Stephanopoulos?
"I hope that next Mother’s Day, we’re going to see a dramatic difference than what we’re seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can. And there’s some conditions to that, George," Fauci said during the segment. "We’ve got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated."
I hadn’t looked up Fauci’s quote, but now that I see it, the paraphrase below of his where-will-we-be-a-year-from-now-which-happens-to-be-Mother’s-Day comment doesn’t sound accurate. (Also, the suggestion that it’s confusing seems predicated on the idea that the CDC guidance last week has already restored normality.)
You have to listen to Fauci carefully and pay attention to all his "If.....thens." For example, Fauci said over a year ago with the very early cases, that we do not need to all start wearing masks unless (if) there is community spread. The same goes for the CDC guidance. And remember that we are still on a big learning curve with this covid virus. Covid may still throw us a big surprise with some very virulent viral mutations Some days I am very optimistic about covid eradication, and some days I am worried about some unforeseen bad change. People and the news pundits want simple answers, but this does not always happen. Life is complicated.
People and the news pundits want simple answers, but this does not always happen. Life is complicated.
This is the flaw in the thinking of the anti-vax "fake news" shouting crowd and their attacks on people like Fauci. They believe that revising you thinking, admitting uncertainty and admitting you were wrong at some earlier time is a weakness when in fact its a strength. That's the nature of science and all human activity really.
and what did Fauci say recently to George Stephanopoulos?
"I hope that next Mother’s Day, we’re going to see a dramatic difference than what we’re seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can. And there’s some conditions to that, George," Fauci said during the segment. "We’ve got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated."
I hadn’t looked up Fauci’s quote, but now that I see it, the paraphrase below of his where-will-we-be-a-year-from-now-which-happens-to-be-Mother’s-Day comment doesn’t sound accurate. (Also, the suggestion that it’s confusing seems predicated on the idea that the CDC guidance last week has already restored normality.)
People and the news pundits want simple answers, but this does not always happen. Life is complicated.
This is the flaw in the thinking of the anti-vax "fake news" shouting crowd and their attacks on people like Fauci. They believe that revising you thinking, admitting uncertainty and admitting you were wrong at some earlier time is a weakness when in fact its a strength. That's the nature of science and all human activity really.
my interpretation of this is that there are a lot of people trying to glom on to any reason they can think of to discredit mass vaccination efforts. I can understand why the "freedom!" people have a hard time conceptually with vaccination programs. Mass vaccinations provide real-lifew evidence that people in a society are interdependent and interconnected. The decisions you and I make regarding public health effect other people, not just ourselves. Sure there is an individual benefit from vaccination, but there is also a larger societal benefit of disease elimination. And we don't eliminate diseases if half the population exercises their "freedom" to opt out. And those who opt out are making choices that put other people at risk who cannot be vaccinated, and even some who were vaccinated but didn't acquire immunity.
the U.S. eliminated measles in 2000. And that was achieved through the kind of "coercion" the "freedom" contingent hates (by requiring vaccinations for public school attendance). And the U.S. realized a benefit for everyone through the collective action of mass vaccination. Of course we still have outbreaks of measles among those who exercised their "freedom" not to have their kids vaccinated (because other countries have not eliminated measles, there is still the possibility of exposure to the virus in the U.S.).
Tomorrow, NYC begins a much more liberal "masks not needed with some exceptions" policy than we have in NJ. It will be interesting to see how that effects their infection and hospitalization rates compared t those in NJ.
Tomorrow, NYC begins a much more liberal "masks not needed with some exceptions" policy than we have in NJ. It will be interesting to see how that effects their infection and hospitalization rates compared t those in NJ.
We went up to the Catskills over the weekend and I expected lots of non-compliance. I was very surprised to see almost complete mask compliance there, as well as in Warwick, NJ on the way home.
I have found this *not* to be the case at points west of here in NJ. Lots of bare faces, even at the height of the pandemic.
Seems it is not just this liberal enclave where things are still being taken seriously…
I still have a neighbor who insists Covid goes through walls, pipes, closed windows, etc. I looked up transmission in apartment buildings, the conditions in the studies are not the same as in our situation, one was due to having a ventilation pipe that was shared and no bathroom windows. He is on the 2nd floor. He thinks someone standing 10 feet in front of the building will give him covid, even with his windows closed...
people do believe bizarre things...sure its not 100% impossible.....but people have to live and function.