We have no reason to not trust Florida's numbers. Where's the proof that every state didn't massively fudge numbers and it's some conspiracy either blowing covid out of proportion or hiding tons of deaths?
I literally have no idea what you're even going on about here. We have no data on under 12 years with regards to the vaccine and if you're saying kids should be mandated to get the vaccine that includes kids under 12. We don't even know what dose to give teenagers yet as it's hypothesized they don't need the 2nd dose and that's what's causing the heart inflammation. So to mandate even just high schoolers to get the vaccine isn't a good idea either, let alone the group we know nothing about.
I mentioned the CDC director and Marty both said the lab hypothesis was most likely scenario in their opinions. Agema said I overrate media-friendly doctors (plural) and thus I asked about the CDC director as Agema implied that the CDC director is merely a media-friendly doctor. That is literally how it went, you can look back at the posts.
He's more than just an able surgeon, he also talks to the experts outside of his expertise to form his opinion on other matters, he literally cites other doctors as sources in his opinion articles.
And what big journals did these studies get published in that would be picked up by major news channels/articles that would allow the conversation to continue in the public space? You don't have to silence literally everything to have conversation to go the way you want it. Again, Facebook blocked all discussion of it, it takes some pretty big influence to accomplish that.
No. They traced back all the infections they could and one only traced back to an outdoors encounter. Ireland also says outdoor transmissions only account for 0.1% of transmissions and the article also cites studies from China and Japan BEFORE lockdowns there. The number of cases associated with outdoor transmission was “so small to be insignificant”
Where is the recommendation specifically for covid? Why recommend masks for covid and not vitamin d when vitamin d data is better than mask data?
The virus being airborne has been known before it even came to the US. Who (pun intended) is saying the virus is not airborne currently?
Nowhere. There is no such proof. Thankfully I, unlike that other thread, never claimed there was.
Firstly, I am not advocating "mandating" vaccines for under-12s.
So this is all due to the pluralisation of "doctors" in Agema's post?
Then why are you posting Makary (a non-expert) rather than the experts in the field?
No, Facebook blocking content merely requires the decision of a small number of people - potentially even just one person - at Facebook, who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without being told what to do by the secretive cabal that conspiracy theorists are trying to magic up.
Uh-huh. Now think about that for a minute - which would evidently be a minute longer than you have spent so far.
Outdoors is safe depending on how people interact outdoors.
Because it's not better than the mask data, except in your hopelessly addled mind. Never mind that masks help everyone, but vitamin D looks very much like it's only going to only help the people deficient in vitamin D. And there are already public health recommendations around vitamin D.
It's like you simply don't understand the point, despite it made several points, which is that the term "airborne" as you are employing it is not the same as the CDC.
Hardly anyone ever gets struck by lightning, so I'm just going to climb the tallest tree in this prairie during a lightning storm
Then, what the fuck are you even advocating? My whole thing in THIS discussion is that you can't mandate kids getting vaccinated (whether all kids, whether kids under 12, whether just high schoolers). So what the fuck are you disagreeing with?
I didn't fucking forget, I removed Marty because I was asking squarely about the CDC director in that post. And much like Fauci, Agema likes avoiding answering the actual questions I ask.
Marty is a public health expert.
Why would anyone at Facebook block discussion of something that wasn't told to them by highly reputable scientists or officials saying talking about something is either just plain 110% wrong information or dangerous? When has Facebook in the past just banned discussion of something just because say Mark Zuckerberg didn't like it?
And that proves all the infections they couldn't trace involve the outdoors? You act as if people don't carry around tracking devices that show a history of where they've been.
No, outdoors is very safe period. Less than 0.1% chance of getting covid outside (per Ireland numbers) coupled with a less than 0.02% of dying (if you're 49 or younger per CDC data) is very fucking safe. Yes, it's not no-risk but being safe doesn't mean there's no-risk. This whole "no-risk" stuff is bullshit, it's not no-risk driving to the grocery store either.
And the people deficient in vitamin d are the ones being hospitalized and dying from covid. Again, it's cheaper than masks and why not "better safe than sorry"? You say you gotta wear a mask outside because "better safe than sorry" while vitamin d can definitely help more people than having people wear masks outside but "no, don't do that, that makes no sense whatsoever".
And frontline doctors were saying since the start that the virus is airborne. Doctors and nurses know what contact, droplet, and aiborne precautions are (the signs are on every patient room at hospitals) and if they are getting infected when abiding by droplet precautions, guess what? It doesn't take a year+ of investigation to figure it out. You go with, AT THE TIME, what the evidence is pointing at and make any adjustments based on new evidence. It's super great that the CDC finally said the virus is airborne after reaching herd immunity!!! That's how public health is supposed to work!!! Our system is working perfectly and there's no problems with it whatsoever!!!
Because Asian people are being assaulted in the streets? Because there's a tidal wave of misinformation about vaccines, 5G masts, masks, HCQ etc. and they just decided to job lot block the lot? Or the one that just happens to conveniently fit your conspiracy theorising? Mm...
There's a lot wrong here, which comes from you not really understanding what scientists would be doing.
Newsworthy stuff still needs data. So big journals printed big stuff available. Science prints the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2; these are what the proteins do; compare SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses; epidemiology; immunity studies etc. They may accept opinion letters, but there are few meaningful studies on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to publish because there's no relevant data to make meaningful conclusions.
Correct! Peter Daszak does not have an argument to end the issue or the power to ban things from discussion. Maybe in that case Daszak and anything he said is a stupid red herring cooked up by conspiracy theorists, that in the cold light of the real world Daszak saying stuff explains the sum total of fuck all. He's just a not very important scientist with an opinion.
It means they can reliably trace some infections to indoors and some to outdoors. And then there's a huge number where they don't know. Thus to say "1 confirmed outdoors case out of x thousand" does not actually give us any accurate indication of risk.
Unfortunately, you have no fucking idea what these papers are really analysing and why these results do not actually translate to what you think they do.
This is either partially or not true. There is a complicating factor that certain morbidities and old age tend to cause lower vitamin D levels. So it is completely unclear whether someone is struggling with covid because they are diabetic / hypertensive / old or because they have lower vitamin D. Firstly, the fact that studies where they shunt people a load of vitamin D and it seems to have not much effect on covid suggests the former may be more likely than the latter. Secondly, we have numerous studies like this suggesting vitamin D does not make for a deciding factor whether people are hospitalised.
This is a made-up, garbage complaint of no value.
It's mostly an objection to your incautious approach in general: reopening schools as soon as we can; reopening other venues before young people have been widely vaccinated; not bothering to focus on vaccinating young people once the at-higher-risk categories have been done.
It identified outbreaks connected with high schools. It's not an exaggeration to say that's "quite bad". It is, however, a massive exaggeration to say I'm describing it as "the most dangerous thing in human history".
OK. So, if that's the case, when Agema said he specifically meant Makary with the "media-friendly" comment, why did you fib and said you didn't bring Makary up? Why didn't you say something like, "what about the CDC director?"
He has very little professional experience in public health, and zero professional experience in virology or epidemiology. I don't see any reason to place his authority on this above that of any other surgeon or doctor from an unrelated field, let alone the consensus among virologists and epidemiologists.
Being outdoors makes 99.9% of people immune, so it's fine to make out with a coronavirus patient as long as you're outside.
I know. You spend 7-8h a day 5 days a week indoors with your colleagues in an office job, and most of the other hours in your house with your family. How long do you spend in any outdoors activity in close proximity to people? It's a tiny fraction of your working week, if any at all. People interact with other people mostly indoors; "outdoors" is largely just people walking past each other in the street, or some other activity usually with distance. So when doing an observational study on spread, it makes a lot of sense that there's a massively higher amount of indoors transmission found because the higher risk outdoors situations are such a tiny proportion of total time spent.
The lab theory being racist is a fucking joke.
Within a few weeks Andersen and a team of highly respected scientists, including Holmes, published their analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first on a pre-print site, then as a letter in the journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020.
We'd have spreader events linked to outdoors by now if it was spreading outdoors at even like a 5% or 10% clip. Outdoors is extremely safe and far within what people deem to be acceptable risk.
I guess epidemiologists don't know how to analyze the spread of the virus either. As linked above epidemiologists have said that transmission outdoors is below 1% and may be below 0.1%. You keep thinking I'm the one that is saying these things, I'm saying these things because other experts are saying these things.
Oh my fucking god, that's literally what I said about masks when you asked me if I knew what the word "correlational" meant. I compared mask studies being correlational to the vitamin d studies I posted. I'm super fucking aware of the vitamin d studies being correlational. There's as much or more "good" data for vitamin d as there is for masks, either both should be recommended or neither. There's a much bigger study showing masks don't work than there is that vitamin d doesn't have an effect.
Michael Osterholm said it was airborne over a year back and same with that letter of 239 scientists.
So you just don't like my approach vs actually have any data against it? We've had schools open in many places during the pandemic (just look at Florida), schools are safe. We've had the Indy 500 with over 130,000 people, we've had completely filled baseball stadiums. Where is the data of covid spreading from these events? I never said young people shouldn't be vaccinated (outside of under 12 since they can't be), I just said vaccination shouldn't be forced (since about half the country already had been infected).
Just because infections increased doesn't mean "quite bad". It's also a massive exaggeration when I state what is most likely to happen and you say it's the most optimistic.
Again, I said what about Marty and CDC director? Agema said something about media-friendly doctors. Then I specifically asked about the CDC director just being a media-friendly doctor? Where is the lie at?
Marty has worked in public health for years. Also, Marty has been right far more often than Fauci has during the pandemic most likely because he doesn't give 2 shits about politics like Fauci. You have to care very much about politics to last 4 or whatever presidents Fauci has lasted. Marty is literally right about herd immunity because we have the real-world data, it's not an opinion anymore.
This has already been provided multiple times in this thread. You don't pay attention.
I would consider outbreaks of dangerous pathogens to be quite bad, actually.
It wasn't a lie; it was a shifted goalpost.
No, he's held one position related to public health in his professional life (a teaching professorship, not anything to do with actual practice).
Only if you assume the truth of everything else you're spouting, which I do not.
Yes, but you and those epidemiologists aren't quite saying the same thing. Why has been explained to you multiple times already, unfortunately you just don't seem to able to process it.
Remember when I said that covid-19 is not chickenpox? Well, in much the same way, vitamin D is not facemasks.
That letter of 200+ scientists (6th July) says stuff like "It is understood that there is not as yet universal acceptance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV2; but in our collective assessment there is more than enough supporting evidence so that the precautionary principle should apply." This roughly translates to "it might not be certain, but it's very likely".
Can't roll eyes hard enough.
Infections increasing in a group of people that are far less deadly and dangerous than the flu makes the pathogen dangerous and quite bad? The covid fatality rate is basically what the flu fatality rate is now. So why isn't the flu considered a dangerous pathogen?
Nope, there were 2 goalposts. If Agema doesn't like Marty (goalpost #1), fine. But what dismissing the CDC director (goalpost #2). Unless Marty and the CDC director is married together for some reason. I wonder why the CDC director got death threats for just stating his opinion.
