2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Silvanus]

That is why they have taken all these drastic measures and lockdowns haven't they? To primarily protect those most at risk and reduce the infection rate? A year later and there are now vaccines so those most at risk can be immunized. But the bar keeps on getting raised. Now there must be absolutely no one with risk of infection or death from covid. When infact this criteria isn't utilized for any other kind of sickness or disease.

No, nobody is actually setting the bar at zero risk whatsoever, that's hyperbole.

The bar has been raised because our ability to limit the number of deaths has improved. Why wouldn't it be raised in line with our expanded ability?

Most of those at greatest risk can be immunised. But the rollout hasn't been completed yet; there's still a lot of unknowns around vaccine efficacy against other variants; and not everyone at-risk can have the vaccine anyway. So, yes, it saves lives to maintain (some level of) restriction.

Your comparison with seatbelts makes no sense. A more apt comparison would be; traffic accidents happen so let's shut down every traffic. Something they also don't do. A certain margin of risk is unavoidable. Even living as a sealed off vegetable in a sterilized room wouldn't free you from the risks of malignant growths or ruptured blood vessels.

No, because shutting down all car travel would make modern life utterly untenable, whereas lockdowns and other restrictions actually don't. Lockdowns and restrictions require significant psychological and practical adjustment, but that's been proven manageable.

The seatbelt comparison is apt enough, because when they were first introduced there was plenty of moaning about how it's an infringement on personal freedom, etc etc. All the same arguments were trotted out: we can't completely remove risk, so why bother taking this precaution?

The answer is also the same in both situations: because the risk-mitigation measure is a practical and reasonable ask, and because it will save lives.

Like I said, people die by the shitload from heart and coronary diseases directly related to unhealthy lifestyles yet no one gives a shit. If public health is really such a concern maybe focus on the biggest killer first.

"Noone gives a shit"? Perhaps you're unaware of the vast public health campaigns targeting unhealthy living? There is already enormous investment in that area.

 

[Silvanus]

And the chances of a kid spreading covid to someone is what again? Even in the midst of the pandemic it was pretty low and now with community transmission so low and only getting lower. When the vaccines are shown to be safe for kids (which they aren't yet), this is all gonna be a mute point because the risk of this happening is gonna be so small that there's no need to vaccinate kids anyway. We can save probably every single life taken in a traffic accident by lowering the speed limit everywhere to like 10 mph but we don't do that. People accept risk all the time.

To put it bluntly, I simply don't trust your evaluation of how high the risk of transmission is. You've shown time and again that you'll happily take the most optimistic, un-cautious approach if it means you get to go out again sooner.

And the term is "moot point".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, maybe you need to do some proper research instead of just grabbing the easist website you can find that supplies dumbed-down shit for the general populace so they can make sense of it. Particularly when you go around claiming you have some sort of scientifically-derived viewpoint.

The UK government updated it's vitamin D recommendations in 2016, plus two updates in 2020, the first (June) looking at acute respiratory tract infections generally with additional data 2016-2020 and the second (December) specifically on covid-19.

THE SOURCE?!?!

You mean that graph? That's not a source, that's a random picture of unclear provenance.

The line about when people are admitted to the hospital after symptom onset.

wah wah wah remdesivir wah

Move on.

Good job actually attacking the argument!!! [/sarcasm]

There is no logical reason why remdesivir was tested before tons of other drugs.

Maybe they think it would be useful to do some studies, rather than hand it out like candy and destroy any chance of doing so.

For them to not be accepted like all the other studies?

He says, on the basis of approximately nothing.

Nope, there's plenty of data.

I hate to break it to you, but literally every medical treatment on the planet has to be given to someone for the first time at some point.

Kids are not who test something on.

And I say again, you haven't given me enough reason to.

This is a bit like Russell's teapot. It is your burden to make your claim credible. The effort you can expect of someone to refute it corresponds to the quality of your argument. You have been told what the critical flaws in your claim are, so you need to go fix them.

So you're saying that if 20 countries masked and the rest didn't and those 20 countries have better infection numbers, you just completely ignore that data? Then all mask data is basically meaningless. Correlation doesn't equal causation but it leans less and less like causation the more times it happens.

Your personal feelings on a topic aren't evidence. Please source that children are disproportionately affected by tetanus.



What's the likelihood of a child being affected by Hep B? Does a somewhat (again, you've conveniently not actually provided a source) worse likelihood of an outcome mean it's disproportional to how it affects adults? How much greater is it? +0.00000001% is a higher likelihood; it's not a disproportionally higher one though.



So kids... exactly who you've repeatedly stated "we've never done this for"

If kids are affected more, which is a combination of risk factor and diseases being more deadly to kids as well. Kids are at much higher risk for getting tetanus than adults, how isn't that super obvious? We give newborns the Hep B vaccine right away because the most common way they get it is from their mother. The vaccine is already available for kids 12 and older. We also have data showing young kids hardly spread it. Kids die more from the flu and kill more people indirectly thru spread of the flu than covid. We don't force flu vaccines on them. Also, the vaccine is still for emergency use only and not approved for kids under 12. I really don't get the attitude of forcing a vaccine on anybody, let alone kids, that is approved for emergency use only. You could have something unique like the bloodclot issue in kids that we don't know and you won't know until millions have been vaccinated. Kids die so rarely from covid that an unknown and very rare side effect unique to kids could cause more harm than benefit. Not too mention, there's tons of kids and people that don't need the vaccine because they already had covid. Why not allow B/T cell testing to allow someone to not get vaccinated (where it would be mandated) if they have covid B/T cells?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

To put it bluntly, I simply don't trust your evaluation of how high the risk of transmission is. You've shown time and again that you'll happily take the most optimistic, un-cautious approach if it means you get to go out again sooner.

And the term is "moot point".

Everything You Should Know About the 2019 Coronavirus and COVID-19

Learn all about the 2019 coronavirus and COVID-19. Get the facts on symptoms, risk factors, treatment, prevention, masks, and more.

www.healthline.com

Data from nearly 150,000 kids. This is inline with pretty much every school study out there as there were tons of schools open across the world during the pandemic. The question always was about whether high school was safe enough, grade school never showed increased spread.

And which of my "optimistic" takes haven't come true? They were "most likely" and shocker... they came true.

 

[tstorm823]

And which of my "optimistic" takes haven't come true? They were "most likely" and shocker... they came true.

Truth is determined by moral grandstanding, not efficacy in predicting future outcomes.

 

[Silvanus]

Everything You Should Know About the 2019 Coronavirus and COVID-19

Learn all about the 2019 coronavirus and COVID-19. Get the facts on symptoms, risk factors, treatment, prevention, masks, and more.

www.healthline.com

Data from nearly 150,000 kids. This is inline with pretty much every school study out there as there were tons of schools open across the world during the pandemic. The question always was about whether high school was safe enough, grade school never showed increased spread.

Data from 150,000 kids, yep. What you don't mention is that more than 2/3 of those studied were 10 - 19... and that the study found the risk is higher for that group;

Children 10 to 20 may be carriers and have a higher likelihood of spreading the disease. And therefore, more caution need to be taken with this age group until more vaccinations are done, especially for the most vulnerable.

And the researcher & CDC both still recommend cohorting & maintaining 3 feet distance, even for the under-10s.

Yet again, you'll look at the headline or the most helpful interpretation and run with it, disregarding any nuance or caution that the researchers themselves offer.

You are not very good at all at evaluating studies.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There is no logical reason why remdesivir was tested before tons of other drugs.

Have you ever heard of Buridan's Ass?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Data from 150,000 kids, yep. What you don't mention is that more than 2/3 of those studied were 10 - 19... and that the study found the risk is higher for that group;



And the researcher & CDC both still recommend cohorting & maintaining 3 feet distance, even for the under-10s.

Yet again, you'll look at the headline or the most helpful interpretation and run with it, disregarding any nuance or caution that the researchers themselves offer.

You are not very good at all at evaluating studies.

So, 50,000 kids in grade school is too small a study for you? The clinical trials for the vaccines had less people than that. Like I said, there's tons of other school data all over the world, nothing shows grade school kids increase spread of the virus. You do know that there's actual science and reasoning behind it right? It's not just like randomly these kids don't transmit it and we don't know why. It's the fact that kids develop the ACE2 receptors as they grow up and thus covid isn't going to affect them nearly as much because that's what is used to infect the cells.

I look at the data, that's all I care about. I don't care about what the CDC's interpretation is, you think when the CDC said vaccinated people don't need to mask was the day science knew that? CDC couldn't commit to the virus being airborne, the virus not spreading through surface contacts, masking outside being pointless. I was more informed by reading the data itself vs the public health messaging the entire time.

Oh wait, it's 3 feet now? I thought it was 6 feet? But it really wasn't 6 feet because there was literally no science or data behind that and it was just an arbitrary number in essence.

Opinion | Where’s the Science Behind CDC’s 6-Foot Social-Distance Decree?

The new limit for schools is 3 feet. But the public is in the dark about the basis of these recommendations.

www.wsj.com

Have you ever heard of Buridan's Ass?

Not applicable.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Remember when "overwhelming scientific consensus" said that covid did not come from a lab?

Virologists vigorously debunk new study on origins of the novel coronavirus

Virologists vigorously debunk new study on origins of the novel coronavirus; the latest allegation that the virus is man-made.

abcnews.go.com

And now even Fauci has changed his tune.

Fauci Finally Not Convinced That COVID-19 Was Naturally Developed

The coronavirus was first reported in late 2019 in Wuhan, China and many U.S. public officials have said they believe there is reason to believe the virus came from a lab leak.

townhall.com

The term "scientific consensus" doesn't really mean much in these days of politicizing science and it may not even mean something is believed by most in the field even. If you looked just a little bit into the whole lab debate a year ago, it was clear that the virus coming from a lab was not near the impossibility the messaging led you to believe. Not that I personally cared too much because whether it was natural or from a lab, that wasn't important at the time because that knowledge really doesn't help in combating the actual problem.

 

[Agema]

THE SOURCE?!?!

Oh good grief. The UK Science Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)

SACN advises on nutrition and related health matters. It advises the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and other UK government organisations.

www.gov.uk

The line about when people are admitted to the hospital after symptom onset.

Cited from nowhere in particular...

Good job actually attacking the argument!!! [/sarcasm]

There is no logical reason why remdesivir was tested before tons of other drugs.

Well, here's the funny thing about "attacking the argument". I took the time to explain the perfectly good scientific rationale for why remdesivir was investigated, and why your opinion was therefore wrong. In response, you have advanced no scientific argument at all, just restated some vague complaints and made unsubstantiated claims about "money".

So if you don't have an argument, and just want to ***** and moan instead, I will write you comments dismissing your bitching and moaning.

For them to not be accepted like all the other studies?

The more studies the better. I like more studies. Admittedly, some of them are a load of crap, but such is life.

Nope, there's plenty of data.

How would you know? You don't even know how to look for it.

Kids are not who test something on.

They weren't initially tested on kids. They were initially tested on adults. And now we have data from millions of adults so we have a better idea what to watch out for, they are now being tested on children to make sure they are safe for them too.

So you're saying that if 20 countries masked and the rest didn't and those 20 countries have better infection numbers, you just completely ignore that data? Then all mask data is basically meaningless. Correlation doesn't equal causation but it leans less and less like causation the more times it happens.

Yeah... tell you what, why don't go back and check the arguments actually made, and then come back with something that makes sense.

We don't force flu vaccines on them. Also, the vaccine is still for emergency use only and not approved for kids under 12. I really don't get the attitude of forcing a vaccine on anybody, let alone kids, that is approved for emergency use only.

Nobody has the covid-19 vaccine forced on them, you know.

 

[Agema]

Remember when "overwhelming scientific consensus" said that covid did not come from a lab?

And that is still the consensus.

And now even Fauci has changed his tune.

He is showing justifiable skepticism; such is the difference between "proven" and "most likely based on current knowledge".

The term "scientific consensus" doesn't really mean much in these days of politicizing science

Actually, it does mean something. The problem is where people find the consensus doesn't agree with them, in which case they start slagging it off.

I mean, people like you are the perfect example. You sit there and act like you know it all and that you're the true disciple of science, and then you sign up to a load of half-baked bullshit. Then when faced with science that tells you otherwise, the only answer to the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe you're scientific and yet supporting stuff science doesn't actually agree with is to attack scientists as being somehow corrupt.

 

[Silvanus]

So, 50,000 kids in grade school is too small a study for you? The clinical trials for the vaccines had less people than that.

Key-term: clinical trials. Why do you think data from a clinical, controlled setting might be more valuable than uncontrolled data from a bunch of schoolkids in the wild?

Like I said, there's tons of other school data all over the world, nothing shows grade school kids increase spread of the virus. You do know that there's actual science and reasoning behind it right? It's not just like randomly these kids don't transmit it and we don't know why. It's the fact that kids develop the ACE2 receptors as they grow up and thus covid isn't going to affect them nearly as much because that's what is used to infect the cells.

Yes, I know you have a surface-level understanding of the biology and have thus become confident enough to dispute and disagree with the experts themselves, including the researchers you yourself linked to.

I look at the data, that's all I care about. I don't care about what the CDC's interpretation is, you think when the CDC said vaccinated people don't need to mask was the day science knew that? CDC couldn't commit to the virus being airborne, the virus not spreading through surface contacts, masking outside being pointless. I was more informed by reading the data itself vs the public health messaging the entire time.

Oh, I don't dispute that you were more informed by reading the data. I dispute that you are able to properly analyse it. Your eyes seem to flit over any notes of caution or data-points that don't seem helpful.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh good grief. The UK Science Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)

SACN advises on nutrition and related health matters. It advises the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and other UK government organisations.

www.gov.uk

And from your source:
- There is a paucity of data on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on immune modulation. Evidence from observational studies is inconsistent and may also be confounded by other factors that affect autoimmune disease and allergic disorders. The data are insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

- RCTs do not generally show a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on infectious disease risk.

- Data on vitamin D and any non-musculoskeletal health outcome were considered to be insufficient at this time to inform the setting of DRVs for vitamin D.

So yes, the recommendations are just for bone health because they didn't find anything else to be sufficient. And the tons of data showing vitamin d is most likely has an important relationship with covid outcomes can't even get them to do the "better safe than sorry" approach for taking more vitamin d (which is harmless) during a pandemic? Or the fact that there's studies prior to this document showing that vitamin d is 6 times more effective than the actual flu vaccine is preventing the flu. But, I guess the data is insufficient...

Cited from nowhere in particular...

It was literally copied from there word for word. And the page has references to the actual studies they pulled the info from. Plus, your source didn't disprove it because they didn't even provide an average. Your source can be using the same exact data and presented it differently.

Well, here's the funny thing about "attacking the argument". I took the time to explain the perfectly good scientific rationale for why remdesivir was investigated, and why your opinion was therefore wrong. In response, you have advanced no scientific argument at all, just restated some vague complaints and made unsubstantiated claims about "money".

So if you don't have an argument, and just want to ***** and moan instead, I will write you comments dismissing your bitching and moaning.

I provided a very legit argument on why it shouldn't have been tested so early ahead of other treatments. Giving an antiviral in a hospital setting makes sense how? You should be doing that very early on. Remdesivir never showed any promise against other viruses in its history. Remdesivir is a "new" drug in the sense that it's never really been given to people outside of trials so its safety is rather unknown. Remdesivir is very expensive and the supply of it was low so you couldn't treat everyone with it in the period of time that would make sense (very early infection). You'd have to save it for the bad cases, but that means waiting which isn't good thing to do with an antiviral. There are plenty of other drugs and treatments that could be hypothesized to work from looking at similar diseases like SARS and MERS and organized pneumonia that would make much more sense to test on covid.

The more studies the better. I like more studies. Admittedly, some of them are a load of crap, but such is life.

And you really don't have the luxury of that in a pandemic.

How would you know? You don't even know how to look for it.

Yet, I'm still waiting on you sourcing a study that showed it doesn't work that you claimed. Not even the official agencies had said that it does or doesn't work, but you jumped to the conclusion already.

They weren't initially tested on kids. They were initially tested on adults. And now we have data from millions of adults so we have a better idea what to watch out for, they are now being tested on children to make sure they are safe for them too.

And by the time the vaccine would be approved for kids and considering the very low community transmission (it's only getting lower and lower), it will be hard to make a case that the vaccines will be more beneficial for kids. There's already the stories of heart inflammation on people under 30 coming out now. If there is some bad side effect for kids, you won't really know until millions are vaccinated. And if say a few kids do actually die from the vaccine, are you even sure you saved more life than you harmed? If 3 kids die, that's about 200 years of life lost and how many kids are going to infect at-risk people when their transmission rate is very low and the amount of virus is so low in the community?

Yeah... tell you what, why don't go back and check the arguments actually made, and then come back with something that makes sense.

We test stuff to begin with because we see patterns in things, something humans are very good at noticing. It does make sense, just not the strongest sense obviously.

Nobody has the covid-19 vaccine forced on them, you know.

Yet... It's looking like my job is gonna force vaccines if they find it's legal. Some colleges are already forcing vaccines.

And that is still the consensus.



He is showing justifiable skepticism; such is the difference between "proven" and "most likely based on current knowledge".



Actually, it does mean something. The problem is where people find the consensus doesn't agree with them, in which case they start slagging it off.

I mean, people like you are the perfect example. You sit there and act like you know it all and that you're the true disciple of science, and then you sign up to a load of half-baked bullshit. Then when faced with science that tells you otherwise, the only answer to the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe you're scientific and yet supporting stuff science doesn't actually agree with is to attack scientists as being somehow corrupt.

Consensus doesn't make something true. And the messaging really wanted to hammer home the lab theory was basically impossible; directly from the 1st article "It is absolutely 100% impossible that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a laboratory."

The lab argument was not some conspiracy level bullshit, it was a legit possibility but the messaging was not saying that. Again, I don't really care too much if it was a lab accident or natural because that doesn't help the problem at hand at all. Though it could be helpful to in the long run to thoroughly try to find the origin so the "next one" could be possibly averted. Shutting people down taking about the lab theory was not science in the least.

Which things have I said that have been wrong again? HCQ was probably my biggest misstep and even then I was never "it's a miracle drug that cures covid". The most I put into the HCQ "stock" was that I think it does help a bit, so little that I said you can substitute it with other even safer zinc ionophores way back when were discussing it months ago. Why not try this thing that you ingest everyday in fruits and vegetables with zinc and vitamin c? It's not gonna do you any harm.

Again, I was ahead of all the bullshit claims about getting covid from surface contacts, the bullshit reinfection stories, the bullshit variant stories (now Pfizer vaccine shows 90% effectiveness against the super SCARY DOUBLE!!! Indian variant). I even freaking predicted when restrictions were gonna be removed completely.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Key-term: clinical trials. Why do you think data from a clinical, controlled setting might be more valuable than uncontrolled data from a bunch of schoolkids in the wild?




Yes, I know you have a surface-level understanding of the biology and have thus become confident enough to dispute and disagree with the experts themselves, including the researchers you yourself linked to.



Oh, I don't dispute that you were more informed by reading the data. I dispute that you are able to properly analyse it. Your eyes seem to flit over any notes of caution or data-points that don't seem helpful.

I'm sorry that you can't do RCTs of kids infected with covid (and not infected) in a room with adults trying to see if they get infected as doing trials like that is unethical. And of all the schools (pre high school) open in the world, where was there even one instance of increased infection from the school being open?

I asked you which of my statements ended up being wrong? I'm still waiting on a list of all these things that I was wrong about since I can't analyze data properly. Mind you, I didn't just look at the data myself. I looked at it and also listened to different takes by several doctors on the data and went with the best argument put forth. All my statements are statements that very qualified doctors have made. The "caution" I considered is whether something is below or above normal acceptable risk.

 

[Agema]

So yes, the recommendations are just for bone health because they didn't find anything else to be sufficient. And the tons of data showing vitamin d is most likely has an important relationship with covid outcomes can't even get them to do the "better safe than sorry" approach for taking more vitamin d (which is harmless) during a pandemic?

No, the recommendations are based on all those factors. It's just bone health is the only one there is a recognised benefit for.

The updates to Dec 2020 conclude that there is still no meaningful evidence Vit D supplementation above current guidelines will serve any useful function, with the most likely exception being under-16s - who are of course at minimal risk from covid-19.

Or the fact that there's studies prior to this document showing that vitamin d is 6 times more effective than the actual flu vaccine is preventing the flu. But, I guess the data is insufficient...

I provided a very legit argument on why it shouldn't have been tested so early ahead of other treatments.

No, you supplied a load of bollocks using the benefit of hindsight. Never mind that but the gross inconsistency that you've called for the use of all sorts of shit (HCQ, quercetin, ivermectin) on nothing but a wing and a prayer, which just means you're unscientific, inconsistent and hypocritical.

And you really don't have the luxury of that in a pandemic.

You always need studies. They're not a luxury, they're the fundamental basis of working out whether something works or not.

It is though perhaps not a surprise that someone advocating quack treatments for illness is so ambivalent about studies.

Yet, I'm still waiting on you sourcing a study that showed it doesn't work that you claimed. Not even the official agencies had said that it does or doesn't work, but you jumped to the conclusion already.

Straw man.

Anti-vaxxer nonsense

Whatever, dude.

Yet... It's looking like my job is gonna force vaccines if they find it's legal. Some colleges are already forcing vaccines.

No, they are not "forcing" a vaccine. They are proposing to make attendance at their college conditional on a vaccine.

Consensus doesn't make something true. And the messaging really wanted to hammer home the lab theory was basically impossible; directly from the 1st article "It is absolutely 100% impossible that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a laboratory."

What one guy writes in an article is just one tiny part of many opinions of many thousands of people who form the scientific consensus. Analysing a couple of individual comments of that one individual does not meaningfully assess the scientific consensus.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm sorry that you can't do RCTs of kids infected with covid (and not infected) in a room with adults trying to see if they get infected as doing trials like that is unethical.

Blatantly, nobody is arguing they should do clinical trials on infecting kids. What I am arguing is that you cannot compare a clinical trial with an analysis of 47,000 kids who aren't in a controlled environment and then conclude that the latter shows there's no risk.

And of all the schools (pre high school) open in the world, where was there even one instance of increased infection from the school being open?

Yes.

I asked you which of my statements ended up being wrong? I'm still waiting on a list of all these things that I was wrong about since I can't analyze data properly.

This has all been provided in the thread already. Several times. Just two or three posts ago you said kids were at almost zero risk, and posted what you said was a study of 150,000 kids; and it turned out the study showed a significant risk for the over-10s, which were most of those 150,000, and that the researcher who actually did the study said we should be cautious about reopening.

Rather than admit you were wrong, you've now apparently just retreated to talking solely about under-10s, though before you were just talking about "kids".

Then there's the above post, in which you said increased incidence hasn't followed schools physically reopening. I've just now provided a link showing a higher incidence following schools physically reopening. Including pre-High School.

Mind you, I didn't just look at the data myself. I looked at it and also listened to different takes by several doctors on the data and went with the best argument put forth. All my statements are statements that very qualified doctors have made. The "caution" I considered is whether something is below or above normal acceptable risk.

Bollocks. You "went with" whatever reinforced what you wanted to believe. I've lost count of the number of times you've been faced with direct statements from researchers, scientists and doctors-- including ones that you've cited yourself-- that contradict your position, only for you to come up with some limp personal opinion on how we can just ignore that bit.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, the recommendations are based on all those factors. It's just bone health is the only one there is a recognised benefit for.

The updates to Dec 2020 conclude that there is still no meaningful evidence Vit D supplementation above current guidelines will serve any useful function, with the most likely exception being under-16s - who are of course at minimal risk from covid-19.

Which we know is wrong.

The flu vaccine is very ineffective. There's tons of studies showing vitamin d supplements lower flu infections.

No, you supplied a load of bollocks using the benefit of hindsight. Never mind that but the gross inconsistency that you've called for the use of all sorts of shit (HCQ, quercetin, ivermectin) on nothing but a wing and a prayer, which just means you're unscientific, inconsistent and hypocritical.

How the fuck is any of this "hindsight"?

I provided a very legit argument on why it shouldn't have been tested so early ahead of other treatments. Giving an antiviral in a hospital setting makes sense how? You should be doing that very early on. Remdesivir never showed any promise against other viruses in its history. Remdesivir is a "new" drug in the sense that it's never really been given to people outside of trials so its safety is rather unknown. Remdesivir is very expensive and the supply of it was low so you couldn't treat everyone with it in the period of time that would make sense (very early infection). You'd have to save it for the bad cases, but that means waiting which isn't good thing to do with an antiviral. There are plenty of other drugs and treatments that could be hypothesized to work from looking at similar diseases like SARS and MERS and organized pneumonia that would make much more sense to test on covid.

All of that was literally known about remdesivir before it was tested. I didn't know hindsight was using information previously available.

You always need studies. They're not a luxury, they're the fundamental basis of working out whether something works or not.

It is though perhaps not a surprise that someone advocating quack treatments for illness is so ambivalent about studies.

They are a luxury when so many are dying in the present. And the doctors you keep calling "quacks" are 3 for 3 and batting 1.000.

Straw man.

Where's the data you said you had that shows ivermectin doesn't work? Where's these unsupportive meta-analyses that I'm purposefully ignoring? Look how far back I have to go, I stay on point with my argument whereas you don't.

What about everyone else's ivermectin meta-analyses? It's very interesting you can only name the people who wrote supportive ones. Is this what you call "just want to know about the truth", that you don't bother properly researching evidence?

---

Whatever, dude.

LMAO, in my world you have to prove unequivocally that giving something to kids will provide more benefit than harm.

No, they are not "forcing" a vaccine. They are proposing to make attendance at their college conditional on a vaccine.

Learning remotely is not the same and not even possible in some fields. Also, are they gonna charge less for the semester?

What one guy writes in an article is just one tiny part of many opinions of many thousands of people who form the scientific consensus. Analysing a couple of individual comments of that one individual does not meaningfully assess the scientific consensus.

That was the messaging about the lab theory a year ago, they wanted to make it look like it was literally impossible. Where's the CNN story about Rebekah Jones now? Funny how CNN ran with how Florida was fudging numbers and made her out to be some hero. Turns out it was all fraud.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Blatantly, nobody is arguing they should do clinical trials on infecting kids. What I am arguing is that you cannot compare a clinical trial with an analysis of 47,000 kids who aren't in a controlled environment and then conclude that the latter shows there's no risk.

How many kids do you need in a study to say it's enough?

Yes.

OMG!!! It went up ONE case per 100,000 over 30 days. And the margin for error is?

And here you go, MUCH MORE Florida school data than just 30 days worth.

Less than 1% of Florida students got COVID-19 at school

Researchers say the findings add to a growing list of evidence suggesting coronavirus transmission isn't more frequent in schools than outside them.

www.wtsp.com

The study adds that transmission in school was no higher than transmission outside school among school-aged children. They say the same findings were seen in five other states and six other countries.

You also know that not having kids in school does a lot of fucking harm, right? Even if kids in school does in fact make cases go up 1 in 100,000 and that is 100% accurate, the harm created by keeping kids home is far outweighs the benefit.

This has all been provided in the thread already. Several times. Just two or three posts ago you said kids were at almost zero risk, and posted what you said was a study of 150,000 kids; and it turned out the study showed a significant risk for the over-10s, which were most of those 150,000, and that the researcher who actually did the study said we should be cautious about reopening.

Rather than admit you were wrong, you've now apparently just retreated to talking solely about under-10s, though before you were just talking about "kids".

Then there's the above post, in which you said increased incidence hasn't followed schools physically reopening. I've just now provided a link showing a higher incidence following schools physically reopening. Including pre-High School.

Let me see... 1% of kids got covid in school in Florida and the chance of a kid dying from covid is 0.003% (0-19 ages per CDC). How much fucking closer do you want it to almost zero risk for it to be almost zero risk?

High school data has never looked "great", I've said that months and months ago IIRC with the French study.

So the one thing you "got" me on is that after schools reopened is that cases went up 1 extra case per 100,000 that was over 30 days. How about all those other things I said like long-term immunity and reinfections, the variants, outdoor masking, surface transmissions, when restrictions would be gone? All that shit ended up being spot-fucking-on.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Bollocks. You "went with" whatever reinforced what you wanted to believe. I've lost count of the number of times you've been faced with direct statements from researchers, scientists and doctors-- including ones that you've cited yourself-- that contradict your position, only for you to come up with some limp personal opinion on how we can just ignore that bit.

Then, why is my hit rate on what I have said so very high? You do know you can listen to someone make a very solid argument on one thing and agree with their argument and then have them make a bad argument on a different thing and disagree with them, right? Just because 2 people agree on 1 thing, doesn't mean they agree on everything. I don't care who says something, I care about the quality of the argument. Again and again and again, there isn't anything I want to believe. You seem to be wanting to believe you have to be a million times more cautious than the data actually says you should be. I'm not going to be anymore cautious than I was before the pandemic, why should I change my acceptable risk? If I found X acceptable before the pandemic and Y (say getting covid from surface contacts) is less likely to happen than X, why should I be concerned over Y? You defintely seemed to have changed your acceptable risk for whatever reason.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED