Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

[MrCalavera]

Cool. The covid vaccines doesn't do any of that. Nor can I find any information as to what our status of immunity is against Covid. Probably because even if you are vaccinated, you are not immune, therefore our herd immunity must be 0%. So were are trying to reach the unreachable.

Okay cool, masks forever then. Awesome I'm going to start selling masks then.

Do it

 

[Agema]

The US is not the number one in anything except military equipment. We used to be awesome. Then politics and greed ruined everything, and it is only getting worse.

Mm. Let me perhaps advance some ideas, using the education system as an example.

1) The US appeared to be great back in the 1950s: but then, what was it measuring? Was it looking at all the schools back then, or just the nice ones where the white kids were taught?
2) As an extention of this idea, the USA is a country with high inequality. The average is dragged down by the bad ones. There is evidence to suggest that the USA has a higher than average proportion of very poor schools (almost always in very poor communities).
3) Other countries caught up. It's not hard to take a look what it going on in the world and copy what works.

So, maybe at the higher end, the USA is still a world leader. It just comes off badly on lots of metrics because of a long tail of underperformance. But that's what Americans want and voted for. You can call it "politics and greed", but in relative terms Americans have never wanted to fund welfare, education, social support and all that stuff. And so when it comes out with modest scores on all sorts of international metrics, it's really just "the American way".

 

[Avnger]

1) The US appeared to be great back in the 1950s: but then, what was it measuring? Was it looking at all the schools back then, or just the nice ones where the white kids were taught?

Related to this point, the US also looked so great back then because of where it was being compared to. It's not that hard to be #1 when all of the other major industrialized countries* were still recovering from being the battleground the largest conflicts in human history twice in 40 years.

*Canada also did not see fighting, but it only had 1/10 of the US's population and was still a dominion under the UK

 

[Agema]

Related to this point, the US also looked so great back then because of where it was being compared to. It's not that hard to be #1 when all of the other major industrialized countries* were still recovering from being the battleground the largest conflicts in human history twice in 40 years.

*Canada also did not see fighting, but it only had 1/10 of the US's population and was still a dominion under the UK

Canada ceased to be a dominion in (if I remember rightly) 1927. It was still heavily tied to the UK in certain ways - including the abiding allegiance of much of its population, many of whom or their parents were born in the UK.

But it's certainly true that the income gap between the USA and Western Europe (except the UK) narrowed considerably in the postwar years.

 

[Seanchaidh]

But that's what Americans want and voted for. You can call it "politics and greed", but in relative terms Americans have never wanted to fund welfare, education, social support and all that stuff.

This is a rather tenuous claim. Electoral politics has for the most part not delivered those compared to various other countries, which is not necessarily very closely linked with what Americans want.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Mm. Let me perhaps advance some ideas, using the education system as an example.

1) The US appeared to be great back in the 1950s: but then, what was it measuring? Was it looking at all the schools back then, or just the nice ones where the white kids were taught?
2) As an extention of this idea, the USA is a country with high inequality. The average is dragged down by the bad ones. There is evidence to suggest that the USA has a higher than average proportion of very poor schools (almost always in very poor communities).
3) Other countries caught up. It's not hard to take a look what it going on in the world and copy what works.

So, maybe at the higher end, the USA is still a world leader. It just comes off badly on lots of metrics because of a long tail of underperformance. But that's what Americans want and voted for. You can call it "politics and greed", but in relative terms Americans have never wanted to fund welfare, education, social support and all that stuff. And so when it comes out with modest scores on all sorts of international metrics, it's really just "the American way".

But at the same time, our choices in the last century have rarely been better than picking one side of the same dysfunctional coin. Pick any developed society for that matter and we’ll find leaders that are easily seduced by power and status at the expense of everyone who got them there. The old bait and switch. The fact that America has been flipping the coin back and forth for generations only goes to show we still don’t know what the hell we’re doing, and it’s beyond become a bad joke.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That paper does not demonstrate that masks "don't work". In fact, quite the opposite. Adherence, for instance, has been mentioned multiple times as a key factor in the usefulness of masks, which you perpetually refuse to take into account or engage with.

The paper showed cloth masks don't do anything, that is literally the result of the cluster randomized control trial. And it also showed that masks (cloth or surgical) didn't work for people under 50.

And so what?

What was wrong with his argument and analysis? You keep saying you don't like this person or that person, stop attacking them as a person, attack their argument.

I cannot help but feel you are being deliberately dense. The question is not so much "what is the rate of outdoors transmission" but "what circumstances and behaviours are infection risks"? The gross rates of indoor versus outdoor transmission are in fact extremely poor ways to assess lots of the circumstances and behaviours that pose risk. We know that indoors transmission is significantly higher risk. But we also know that transmission occurs outdoors: it's clear from the studies. This isn't going to be from walking down a street maintaining 6' social distancing, is it? So what are people doing outdoors that puts them at risk? It's not hard to work out. So wear a mask in those circumstances to be on the safe side.

I told you to show me a paper where a lot of people got infected dining outdoors like you can for indoor dining (as the seating and distancing will be very similar). You brought up the point, which is a really bad point, that outdoor transmissions are less because people spend more time indoors. Just because that is true doesn't mean much. Any expert will tell you that ventilation is the #1 factor for reducing airborne transmissions and outside is full of ventilation obviously. Transmission outside is far far far lower in the same time durations and distances than inside transmission. Where's similar spread at a concert or a football game or a beach that you would find indoors at the same distances and times? The fact is outdoor transmission happens so infrequently, it's not something anyone should worry about. People don't worry about many other things that are more deadly outdoor covid risk.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It's not funny at all: it's completely irrelevant to the fact that Zelenko is citing HCQ as an antiviral.

He put his name on it, it should not include anything he does not believe in. That's the way it works.

I prefer to see what someone has published, having spent considerable time been worked on, thought over, written, re-written, reviewed and re-written again to make sure it is accurate as possible. Rather than someone talking off the top of their head with attendant greatly increased risk of error or bullshitting for ease.

Stop making excuses. You didn't read the literature properly and went off half-cocked. You fucked up: own it.

You think that everyone that has their name on the paper agrees with everything single thing in the paper? That's not humanly possible.

He did a presentation, it wasn't just talking off the cuff.

Again, I never said HCQ was some miracle drug. You read less literature than me, you can't even provide legit studies that prove or disprove anything. The top health agencies haven't done good studies themselves. And you're gonna tell me I haven't done the work, they haven't done the work. That's why nobody has any proof of anything.

It's probably safe, for most people. But it's also an unnecessarily high amount for most people, and there is no good reason for people to take much more than they need considering the potential risk. Basic guidelines should be written to reflect that risk.

You don't know how much vitamin d people need. Something like 5,000 IUs is not an unnecessarily high amount, it is only when you believe 400 IUs is all you need when that isn't true.

You asked for the evidence ivermectin did harm: I pointed out it has a side effect profile, those side effects being monitored and recorded as part of the drug approval process and post-approval monitoring, thereby indicating there clearly is scientific evidence it can cause harm.

If ivermectin does not treat covid, it instrinsically does more harm than good, because it does no good whatsoever whereas in at least some people it is causing harm.

You gave me side effects of overdosing on ivermectin, that's very disingenuous. Dihydrogen monoxide comes off as bad too when you overdose on it.

Oh, will you just shut the fuck up about remdesivir as if it actually matters a damn. Nothing about remdesivir provides a suitable rationale to defend ivermectin.

We've been through the whys and wherefores of remdesivir a dozen times already, and your refusal to understand what happened and why is nothing but your gratuitous ignorance and deliberate misunderstanding.

It's a completely double standard because the data for both of them are basically the same and one is given out like candy and the other is demonized as horse medicine. There's no reason to recommend one and not the other if you're only looking at the data.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Where's the fact-checkers to delete this anti-vax misinformation from CDC Director?

 

[Avnger]

View attachment 4893

Where's the fact-checkers to delete this anti-vax misinformation from CDC Director?

Pro-tip: You not liking what the tweet says doesn't mean it's misinformation. In fact, based on your posts in this thread, you not liking a particular recommendation actually seems to correlate well with exactly the opposite.

 

[Agema]

You think that everyone that has their name on the paper agrees with everything single thing in the paper? That's not humanly possible.

He did a presentation, it wasn't just talking off the cuff.

I see very clearly Zelenko putting his name to a paper saying HCQ with the quotation "The antiviral effects of HCQ are well documented", plus citation. If it's well documented (and it is), there is no point arguing Zelenko doesn't know that unless your argument is that Zelenko is a moron.

You read less literature than me

You don't know how much vitamin d people need.

On an individual case-by-case basis, no. But I do know there's a great deal of information suggesting that 400IUs is totally fine for most of them.

You gave me side effects of overdosing on ivermectin, that's very disingenuous. Dihydrogen monoxide comes off as bad too when you overdose on it.

No, I gave you a few potentialy side effects of a normal dose of ivermectin, as read straight off the British National Formulary.

It's a completely double standard because the data for both of them are basically the same and one is given out like candy and the other is demonized as horse medicine. There's no reason to recommend one and not the other if you're only looking at the data.

Actually, that's not true. Remdesivir has at least one robust trial indicating that it shortened hospital stay. Which is admittedly deeply underwhelming, but that single positive robust study is one more than ivermectin has.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Where's the fact-checkers to delete this anti-vax misinformation from CDC Director?

..?

 

[Trunkage]

The lockdown continues in some areas, even after 65% vaccinated
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59283128.amp

Note: most of the people who are getting sick are not vaccinated

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Pro-tip: You not liking what the tweet says doesn't mean it's misinformation. In fact, based on your posts in this thread, you not liking a particular recommendation actually seems to correlate well with exactly the opposite.

Where's the data that says that tweet is anywhere near close to being true? All the mask studies that have been done have not shown results anywhere near close to that. Telling people that something works more than 80% when it doesn't is a good thing in your world? What does it matter if it's masks or ivermectin? In either case, show your work.

..?

Because in this day and age anything that is helpful against covid is bad because it only makes people not get the vaccine.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I see very clearly Zelenko putting his name to a paper saying HCQ with the quotation "The antiviral effects of HCQ are well documented", plus citation. If it's well documented (and it is), there is no point arguing Zelenko doesn't know that unless your argument is that Zelenko is a moron.

Him knowing it's in the paper to him agreeing with that are 2 different things. I literally watched his presentation on it.

No, I gave you a few potentialy side effects of a normal dose of ivermectin, as read straight off the British National Formulary.

You gave 2 side effects associated with overdoses.

CDC warns against inappropriate Ivermectin use

www.ncmedboard.org

Actually, that's not true. Remdesivir has at least one robust trial indicating that it shortened hospital stay. Which is admittedly deeply underwhelming, but that single positive robust study is one more than ivermectin has.

Even the studies that say ivermectin didn't do anything showed it shorted hospital stays as well. It makes no sense why remdesivir is given out so freely while ivermectin is demonized. At least with current data (as the ivermectin trials are ongoing), you're either for both of them or neither of them. And Japan is using ivermectin by the way.

Doctors are giving remdesivir willy nilly but they don't even fucking know about the thing, monoclonal antibodies, that actually work.

Doctors are often unaware of the only treatment for early Covid-19 | CNN

On September 17, Mayra Arana made the phone call she says saved her life.

www.cnn.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

On an individual case-by-case basis, no. But I do know there's a great deal of information suggesting that 400IUs is totally fine for most of them.

That's dinosaur thinking. Nobody that researches vitamin d thinks 400IUs is all that is needed. 400IUs is a guideline that is 50+ years old and is completely obsolete. All that does is ensure you don't get rickets. Literally everything I said months ago is shown true from these papers. Vitamin d overdosing and calcification isn't a thing. Low vitamin K2 is the reason for calcification, not vitamin d. Normal vitamin levels for vitamin d in human history are much higher than they are today as normal life has completely changed very rapidly.

Immunologic Effects of Vitamin D on Human Health and Disease

Vitamin D is responsible for regulation of calcium and phosphate metabolism and maintaining a healthy mineralized skeleton. It is also known as an immunomodulatory hormone. Experimental studies have shown that 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, the active form of vitamin D, exerts immunologic activities...

www.mdpi.com

Indigenous populations such as Maasai herders and Hadza tribesmen were found to have serum 25(OH)D levels in the range of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L). These levels are consistent with those reported in populational studies to be associated with the lowest risk of several types of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, autoimmune diseases, and all-cause mortality. To maintain these blood levels with minimal sunlight exposure, a person would require ingestion of 4000–6000 IUs of vitamin D daily, which would maintain serum vitamin D levels in the range of 20–40 ng/mL (50–100 nmol/L) and serum 25(OH)D levels in the range of 40–60 ng/mL (50–100 nmol/L).

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Much research shows that blood calcidiol (25(OH)D3) levels correlate strongly with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. There is open discussion regarding whether low D3 is caused by the infection or if deficiency negatively affects immune defense. The aim of this study was to collect...

www.mdpi.com

Additionally, many recommendations for vitamin D3 supplementation are in the range of 5 to 20 µg per day (200 to 800 international units), which is much too low to guarantee the optimal blood level of 40–60 ng/mL. One reason for these incorrect recommendations turned out to be calculation error. Another reason for the error is because vitamin D3 treatment to cure osteomalacia was commonly combined with high doses of calcium to support bone calcification. When examining for the side effects of overdoses of such combination products, it turned out that there is a high risk of calcium deposits in blood vessels, especially in the kidney. Today, it is clear that such combination preparations are nonsensical because vitamin D3 stimulates calcium uptake in the intestine itself. Without calcium supplementation, even very high vitamin D3 supplementation does not cause vascular calcification, especially if another important finding is included. Even when calcium blood levels are high, the culprit for undesirable vascular calcification is not vitamin D but insufficient blood levels of vitamin K2. Thus, daily vitamin D3 supplementation in the range of 4000 to 10,000 units (100 to 250 µg) needed to generate an optimal vitamin D3 blood level in the range of 40–60 ng/mL has been shown to be completely safe when combined with approximately 200 µg/mL vitamin K2. However, this knowledge is still not widespread in the medical community, and obsolete warnings about the risks of vitamin D3 overdoses unfortunately are still commonly circulating.

 

[Agema]

You gave 2 side effects associated with overdoses.

They are both side effects from normal doses and effects from overdose. Overdose is just probably more likely to cause them and with worse effects because more drug was taken.

Even the studies that say ivermectin didn't do anything showed it shorted hospital stays as well.

And none of the studies showing even shortened hospital stays for ivermectin are robust or very useful. Plenty don't even show that.

That's dinosaur thinking. Nobody that researches vitamin d thinks 400IUs is all that is needed. 400IUs is a guideline that is 50+ years old and is completely obsolete.

No, it's well defended by studies that are modern as well as 50+ years old. We've covered this, and you're still lying.

All that does is ensure you don't get rickets. Literally everything I said months ago is shown true from these papers.

Cherry picking. You're incompetent or dishonest.

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Much research shows that blood calcidiol (25(OH)D3) levels correlate strongly with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. There is open discussion regarding whether low D3 is caused by the infection or if deficiency negatively affects immune defense. The aim of this study was to collect...

www.mdpi.com

The fact you put up garbage papers like this only tells us you have no ability to recognise good science from bad.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

The fact that we have a new variant that may or may not evade vaccines shows that all this tantrum over vaccines and mask mandates is really just prolonging this pandemic.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The fact that we have a new variant that may or may not evade vaccines shows that all this tantrum over vaccines and mask mandates is really just prolonging this pandemic.

Maybe if western countries let the vaccine be manufactured outside of their factories so it could be spread to the rest of the world easily

:V

V:

 

[Worgen]

Maybe if western countries let the vaccine be manufactured outside of their factories so it could be spread to the rest of the world easily

:V

V:

Pfizer signs license agreement to allow broader global access to its experimental Covid-19 antiviral pill | CNN

Pfizer said Tuesday it signed a licensing agreement to allow broader global access to its experimental Covid-19 pill.

www.cnn.com