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.
You really have a hard time citing sources. What papers don't show a strong vitamin d deficiency/insufficiency to covid hospitalizations and deaths? It's even more consistent correlation than masks correlations.
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?
Yes, we've been through this before and that is not a true statement about average time to hospitalization. It's ridiculous as your claim that the UK did worse than the US because you cited average population density that made no sense whatsoever.
If I'm "straw manning", then so are you. I literally just agreed with your statement.
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?
Your shit and underpowered study that you cite (just one study BTW) still had the HCQ group have less hospitalizations. I do understand the fucking study was on viral clearance times and I said that isn't even the point of using HCQ. I don't use that site's figures at all, I've only just used it as a database for studies. So how am I being lied to if I don't give 2 shits about their graphs and whatnot? Where is some meta-analysis on early treatment or say just like 3 early treatment studies that showed no benefit or showed harm?
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.
You've still yet to put forth these studies. You put forth studies in another thread that were not early treatment meta-analyses and one that was completely bullshit safety study giving people literally a toxic dose of HCQ and figuring out that was bad. If you so great at analyzing data, why do you keep giving me bullshit studies?
I repeat: COVID-19 IS NOT CHICKENPOX.
Then we shouldn't treat covid with anti-virals because
covid is not chicken pox. There are general things you do based on the type of disease it is. Just like you don't vaccinate people against [fill in pretty much any viral disease] that already had it. The whole point of vaccines is to create the immune response that one gets from being infected thus vaccination to previously infected is rather redundant.
Your first paragraph quoted is basically you allowing anti-vaxxers to control the frame of the conversation. "Ooh, we can't do this, because they might do more of what they're already doing!" Their ignorance is not equal to real, earned knowledge and you need to stop pretending otherwise.
How are anti-vaxxers controlling the frame of the conversation? Isn't the fact that 173 million Americans got at least one dose of the vaccine proof that the anti-vaxxers aren't controlling the conversation? Basically nobody is saying vaccines don't work. Don't you realize if something bad happens with a vaccine rollout, then the next time there's a rollout, more people will be less likely to get the vaccines? That's for just about anything, not just vaccines. A lot of people have opposition to nuclear power even though it's not rational and the US could be a lot greener in energy production if it wasn't for an irrational fear against nuclear power from like the 70s.
Why are we obligated to spend time debunking whatever Youtube randos come out with?
Answer: we're not. It's a waste of time. It's a better starting point to just pay it no credence.
LMFAO... Yeah, we should never pay attention to well respected and reputable doctors and scientists!!! I wonder why Florida did so well when they didn't listen to the experts you like? DeSantis listen to a whole panel of experts you don't like and they ended up being right. Life has been normal in Florida for like a year and other states are just now opening up and Florida's numbers aren't any worse.
Oh, nobody's arguing that. Thankfully the benefits of vaccination have already been thoroughly explored.
If you think we should assume that there's some enormous hidden harm for a very specific subgroup of people, which hasn't come up in any of the studies or research, and hasn't been in evidence anywhere yet, that's kind of on you to demonstrate.
Not for kids, we don't even know what dose to give them yet. Funny how you're so against CDC recommendations when they don't agree with your beliefs. There doesn't have to be some enormous hidden harm because the benefits for vaccinating kids (under 12) is so very small that even a small harm can tip the scales to being more harmful than beneficial. The younger you are the more chance for heart inflammation, but I thought nothing has come up? Are you just sweeping the evidence you don't like under the rug?
If we don't mandate kids to get vaccinated for X that is more dangerous to them and they spread it way more, then why would we mandate they get vaccinated for Y when Y is less dangerous and they hardly spread Y? How is that consistent is our established levels of acceptable risk?