2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Phoenixmgs]

Here's why you don't force vaccinations in kids until you are 110% sure the benefits outweigh the costs.

(All queued up)

If you do force vaccinations on kids and something does happened where you have just a few kids die from the vaccine, guess what would happen? You just gave the anti-vaxxers the greatest argument against vaccinations. Whereas if you find vaccines for kids should almost certainly be safe for kids, then you can make the vaccine voluntary for kids/parents. And the following here is my basic logic that wasn't discussed in the video. Having vaccines voluntarily means you'll have in effect a case study of millions of kids that got it, which should find any 1 in a million issues and then you can mandate vaccinations if you have to at that time. Then, when we even get to "that time", is there even enough covid going around to merit mandating then anyways?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Anti-vaxxers don't "need" proof and it doesn't matter how often you prove a thing is safe.

"Wait until enough people get sick that the prevention is useless" is a bullshit strategy.

 

[Agema]

I think the only vitamin d studies on flu that didn't show positive results were with people that were mostly sufficient in vitamin d.

Right. So Vitamin D is useful for people deficient in Vitamin D. Thanks for that little nugget of genius.

The standard treatment for OP is corticosteroids. Corticosteroid therapy results in complete recovery in up to 80% of patients within a few weeks to 3 months. The disease is persistent in the remainder.

You are so clueless. This is what happens when you read random bits of information and try to apply them without any systematic understanding: trying to run before you can walk.

Covid-19 causes pneumonia. Organising pneumonia in covid-19 is a late stage complication of covid-19 pneumonia. Standard treatment of pneumonia is antibiotics / antivirals, moving to corticosteroids if and when pneumonia is severe. Therefore, rationale for antivirals according to normal principles of pneumonia treatment.

But why is remdesivir "OK" to give and not ivermectin?

Either drug is okay to give, under proper medical supervision, on a case by case basis, by agreement of physician and patient, where appropriately indicated. But if there isn't a good rationale for using a drug, it's not appropriately indicated, is it? That's why they recommend not using stuff like ivermectin outside clinical trials. And it certainly shouldn't be handed out to anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

blah blah blah

If you've got nothing new to say, stop bothering people.

 

[Agema]

Where are these early treatment studies that have shown HCQ has no effect or a negative effect?

We've already done this. If you can't remember them, that's your problem: you can however go back and check.

90% of this debate is you just not having any apparent memory of what's already been discussed.

I never said HCQ was some wonder drug, I even said you can substitute it out for other ionophores even (that's hardly some stamp of approval). There's no harm in trying early treatments that have basically no risk of harm and have the mechanisms that in theory will help. We'd already know if people were doing worse on say HCQ or ivermectin, they've both been given to millions of people for covid, where's some retrospective data showing that patients did worse?

Oh my fucking god. HCQ is a bust. "Zinc ionophore" is bullshit. Get over it, for fuck's sake.

But public health doesn't consistency message...

Sure. And by the same rationale, maybe we should treat eplilepsy with paracetamol, so we have consistency between epilepsy and analgesia.

Chickenpox is chickenpox, and covid-19 is covid-19.

 

[Schadrach]

So, my state's doing a lottery as a way to encourage people to get vaccinated, an assortment of prizes being drawn for starting on WV Day (June 20) open only to vaccinated residents of WV.

If you won't get vaccinated for yourself, and you won't do it for your family, and you won't do it to win prizes....do it for Baby Dog (Yes, that's my governor. Yes, I voted for the other guy (Salango).).

https://www.wtrf.com/do-it-for-baby...do-it-for-babydog-wv-vaccine-lottery-details/

First drawing on June 20 includes the following prizes:

• (2) full four-year scholarships to any West Virginia institution for kids ages 12 to 25-years-old
• (2) brand-new, custom-outfitted trucks
• (2) “25-weekend getaways” to West Virginia State Parks
• (5) lifetime hunting and fishing licenses
• (5) custom hunting rifles
• (5) custom hunting shotguns
• $1 million

They're going to do them weekly through August 4th, and the final one will include $588k and $1.588M prizes.

My wife's department (which handles the vaccination hotline among other things) has already received complaints about guns being included among the prizes.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you do force vaccinations on kids and something does happened where you have just a few kids die from the vaccine, guess what would happen? You just gave the anti-vaxxers the greatest argument against vaccinations. Whereas if you find vaccines for kids should almost certainly be safe for kids, then you can make the vaccine voluntary for kids/parents. And the following here is my basic logic that wasn't discussed in the video. Having vaccines voluntarily means you'll have in effect a case study of millions of kids that got it, which should find any 1 in a million issues and then you can mandate vaccinations if you have to at that time. Then, when we even get to "that time", is there even enough covid going around to merit mandating then anyways?

So you're not an anti-vaxxer, but you're allowing actual anti-vaxxers to dictate the narrative.

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

I for one am shocked, shocked, that Phoenix's latest argument is a YouTube video with two smug, gurning commentators in the thumbnail. This is the kind of rigorous scientific investigation we need.

 

[Avnger]

I for one am shocked, shocked, that Phoenix's latest argument is a YouTube video with two smug, gurning commentators in the thumbnail. This is the kind of rigorous scientific investigation we need.

Don't ya know that the MSM can't be trusted? That's why I uncritically parrot people in internet videos instead!

 

[SilentPony]

Opinion | The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

www.wsj.com

So this happened. Basically researchers found a specific genetic sequence in the DNA of Covid-19, CGG-CGG, that is specifically added during "gain of function" research because it does not occur in nature, as a sorta tag to allow researchers to know what they're dealing with. And adding this specific sequence to this specific part has been part of gain of function research since at least 1992, and the 11 times its been added has been to create super-viruses for lab research.

 

[Kwak]

Opinion | The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

www.wsj.com

So this happened. Basically researchers found a specific genetic sequence in the DNA of Covid-19, CGG-CGG, that is specifically added during "gain of function" research because it does not occur in nature, as a sorta tag to allow researchers to know what they're dealing with. And adding this specific sequence to this specific part has been part of gain of function research since at least 1992, and the 11 times its been added has been to create super-viruses for lab research.

So why was this not seen in earlier analysis?

 

[SilentPony]

So why was this not seen in earlier analysis?

It was. China just said they were wrong, and the world took them at their word.
The Wuhan lab published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section.
But it was discovered later in March 2020, but again China just said no, and people just went with that.

 

[Agema]

So this happened. Basically researchers...

I just want to point out that one of those two "experts" is an astrophysicist, and the other runs a clinical trials company specialising in breast cancer who - from a quick background check - looks like a dodgy, aggressively self-publicising chancer who has tried to cash in on covid-19 with bullshit already.

With all due respect, I think we should wait for comment from the real experts.

 

[Agema]

So why was this not seen in earlier analysis?

Urgh. Well, having checked around, I think it has been reported. Well reported.

CGG encodes for arginine (R). They're talking, as far as I can see, about the furin cleavage site, which has the amino acids PRRA (proline, arginine, arginine, alanine). This is formed by a 12-nucleotide insert TCCTCGGCGGGC (insert compared to closest identified relative). We've known about this for ages - since well into last year. In which case the authors have repackaging old news in a form that may appear novel to someone scientifically clueless, such as WSJ editor.

 

[SilentPony]

I just want to point out that one of those two "experts" is an astrophysicist, and the other runs a clinical trials company specialising in breast cancer who - from a quick background check - looks like a dodgy, aggressively self-publicising chancer who has tried to cash in on covid-19 with bullshit already.

With all due respect, I think we should wait for comment from the real experts.

Except its not the first time its been reported, nor the first scientific paper to find the specific markers. It just keeps getting ignored because people just decided China was telling the truth.

 

[Agema]

Except its not the first time its been reported, nor the first scientific paper to find the specific markers. It just keeps getting ignored because people just decided China was telling the truth.

And what exactly did this physicist and entrepreneur add to our knowledge?

It was. China just said they were wrong, and the world took them at their word.
The Wuhan lab published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section.
But it was discovered later in March 2020, but again China just said no, and people just went with that.

The complete genome was published 3rd Feb in Nature, it was not partial. They note 29,903 nucleotides, and listed it in a gene bank. The list in the gene bank clearly shows the insert ~23,600, so they made no attempt to hide it.

Other than that, I have no idea what you are going on about, but it sounds like a dreadful load of bollocks.

 

[Kwak]

Urgh. Well, having checked around, I think it has been reported. Well reported.

CGG encodes for arginine (R). They're talking, as far as I can see, about the furin cleavage site, which has the amino acids PRRA (proline, arginine, arginine, alanine). This is formed by a 12-nucleotide insert TCCTCGGCGGGC (insert compared to closest identified relative). We've known about this for ages - since well into last year. In which case the authors have repackaging old news in a form that may appear novel to someone scientifically clueless, such as WSJ editor.

This indecipherable complexity of special knowledge systems is why it's so easy to mislead people. Like, I trust you and will have to take your word for it, but that's what malevolent people like Mercola and the rest will take advantage of when they package such details in a narrative which confirms their audiences emotional need for a world of evil plots against them that they are taking a heroic stand against, unlike the rest of the sheep.
My mum told me according to "doctor" Mercola the covid vaccine has caused more deaths than any other vaccine, and of course he's "backed it up with science and data" - so looking into it it seems he's making the claim it has 50 times the adverse side effects compared to the flu vaccine, by using the VAERS database. Which is almost useless for making such a claim.
But it convinced my mum because it sounds legit.
Tucker Carlson claimed the same thing.

Fact-check: Does the COVID-19 vaccine cause 50 times more adverse effects than flu vaccine?

An article shared in Facebook posts claimed: "Coronavirus vaccinations seem to be causing 50 times the adverse events of flu vaccinations after just the first of two shots." Experts say the data about the new COVID-19 vaccinations are too new to make meaningful comparisons to flu shots.

www.google.com

 

[Agema]

This indecipherable complexity of special knowledge systems is why it's so easy to mislead people.

Talking about special knowledge systems, I probably need to be a bit more scientifically accurate regarding my last post. PRRA is what's caused by the insert, where the the latter three contribute to the furin cleavage site, rather than the cleavage site itself (RRAR in SARS-CoV-2).

Like, I trust you and will have to take your word for it, but that's what malevolent people like Mercola and the rest will take advantage of when they package such details in a narrative which confirms their audiences emotional need for a world of evil plots against them that they are taking a heroic stand against, unlike the rest of the sheep.

Yes.I find it's all so wearisome, these days. We have far too much information, and far too few ways of analysing and disseminating reliable information.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Right. So Vitamin D is useful for people deficient in Vitamin D. Thanks for that little nugget of genius.

And the vast majority of covid hospitalizations and deaths are those with vitamin d deficiency...

Over 1 billion people in the world are vitamin d deficient/insufficient.

You are so clueless. This is what happens when you read random bits of information and try to apply them without any systematic understanding: trying to run before you can walk.

Covid-19 causes pneumonia. Organising pneumonia in covid-19 is a late stage complication of covid-19 pneumonia. Standard treatment of pneumonia is antibiotics / antivirals, moving to corticosteroids if and when pneumonia is severe. Therefore, rationale for antivirals according to normal principles of pneumonia treatment.

And the virus is cleared by the time many people even get to the hospital for covid. You should give an antiviral EARLY.

Either drug is okay to give, under proper medical supervision, on a case by case basis, by agreement of physician and patient, where appropriately indicated. But if there isn't a good rationale for using a drug, it's not appropriately indicated, is it? That's why they recommend not using stuff like ivermectin outside clinical trials. And it certainly shouldn't be handed out to anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

That's why banning doctors from giving ivermectin is bad. People have to go to court to get doctor prescribed medications.

We've already done this. If you can't remember them, that's your problem: you can however go back and check.

90% of this debate is you just not having any apparent memory of what's already been discussed.

Nope, you never provided them like you never provide the ivermectin meta-analyses that you claimed there were.

Oh my fucking god. HCQ is a bust. "Zinc ionophore" is bullshit. Get over it, for fuck's sake.

And data showing that? You could really end a lot of this if you just provide the data.

Sure. And by the same rationale, maybe we should treat eplilepsy with paracetamol, so we have consistency between epilepsy and analgesia.

Chickenpox is chickenpox, and covid-19 is covid-19.

There is no consistency like they don't go by "better safe than sorry". What virus do you need to get a vaccine for after you already had it? There's general rules that we abide by that are consistent across different diseases. By your logic then, we shouldn't treat covid with antivirals because we treat chicken pox with antivirals.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Anti-vaxxers don't "need" proof and it doesn't matter how often you prove a thing is safe.

"Wait until enough people get sick that the prevention is useless" is a bullshit strategy.

And when the rest of the public becomes hesitant on vaccines because you forced them on a group that had very little to benefit and some bad stuff happened, that ends up being a good thing? If you open up the vaccines to kids voluntarily, you'll get plenty getting the vaccines like you do now, it's been voluntary the whole time. And if someone bad happens and it was voluntary, then it obviously doesn't look as bad and the actual bad is lessened (since less kids got it overall).

We have plenty of people that already got sick and also vaccinated, it's a combination of both, any kind of immunity works.

So you're not an anti-vaxxer, but you're allowing actual anti-vaxxers to dictate the narrative.

How are they controlling the narrative by having vaccinations voluntary, are you saying they've been controlling the narrative the whole time then?

I for one am shocked, shocked, that Phoenix's latest argument is a YouTube video with two smug, gurning commentators in the thumbnail. This is the kind of rigorous scientific investigation we need.

Good job attacking the actual argument!!! Waiting to know something is safe and offers more benefits than harm is bad idea? I'd love to see the argument against that.

 

[Agema]

And the vast majority of covid hospitalizations and deaths are those with vitamin d deficiency...

There is manifestly no clear evidence of this - you've done the same boneheaded play as normal and just picked up on one or scientific papers and ignored all the ones that don't agree.

And the virus is cleared by the time many people even get to the hospital for covid. You should give an antiviral EARLY.

As has already been discussed, the median time for hospitalisation is about 4 days after symptoms, and the median time for live virus to be available is 8 days post symptom or longer (particularly, possibly, in severe cases).

You really don't remember anything, do you?

That's why banning doctors from giving ivermectin is bad. People have to go to court to get doctor prescribed medications.

Straw man.

Nope, you never provided them like you never provide the ivermectin meta-analyses that you claimed there were.

Remember when you cited that bullshit website (basically part of the family of which https://hcqmeta.com/ is part)? By past record, you probably don't. But it's from that website that you made the stupid and completely wrong claim that the early studies were supportive. I went through several of the studies from that website and pointed out that in fact they showed early HCQ treatment was not useful, and that website was lying. That study you keep going on about calling shit because you don't understand it is on the early use of HCQ - that's precisely why I highlighted it, to demonstrate that the website lied and the more reliable data on early studies shows it is ineffective. It is in fact sort of hilarious that the one study you have stuck in your mind is exactly all I need to show your statement there is a lie.

Do you just have a bad memory? Or do you pay no attention in the first place? Are you just behaving like a child, lying and denying the truth when you don't like it?

And data showing that? You could really end a lot of this if you just provide the data.

Throughout the last year, there have been a vast number of studies put forward in these threads, whether primary research or meta-analyses. I simply refer you to the above statement about your memory, attention span or your honesty: because at least one is hopelessly deficient.

There is no consistency like they don't go by "better safe than sorry". What virus do you need to get a vaccine for after you already had it? There's general rules that we abide by that are consistent across different diseases. By your logic then, we shouldn't treat covid with antivirals because we treat chicken pox with antivirals.

I repeat: COVID-19 IS NOT CHICKENPOX.