2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Okay. Think your way through this.

Hydroxychloroquine has been around since the 1950s. It's first and principal proposed mechanism of action as an antimalarial and antirheumatic drug was discovered only in ~1980-1990s. You spent months touting a novel potential mechanism of action for it that was only discovered about ten years ago. Let's take some other example. Barbiturates date from around 1900 and benzodiazepines from the late 1950s. The main molecular target of these drugs was only discovered in the 1980s.

What does this tell you about our knowledge of drugs, and how much we need to know about their mechanism of action for clinical application?

The simple answer is that we don't know a lot of things that drugs do. We prescribe some drugs for conditions where we pretty much don't know what they do at a molecular level at all. If we're still finding out things that HCQ might do sixty years after it was first approved, what are the chances we know everything that remdesivir does when it was approved last year?

So what happened is that there was a plausible theory that remdesivir (along with a lot of other drugs) might work. They hustled it through approval on the back of some weak studies to make sure that if it did do any good, it would be available. Just because - like you surely want - society should prepare availability of potentially useful drugs when we need novel treatments. Then later, more evidence rolls in, crushing hopes by suggesting it's probably little or no use for covid-19, therefore it gradually gets dropped. I'm sure there are still some physicians out there prescribing it for covid-19. But you keep saying doctors should be able to doctor. Therefore they can dose people up on remdesivir much like they can dose people up on HCQ and ivermectin: in my opinion, ill-advisedly.

Bottom line, there's not a problem here.

But let's imagine a scenario where remdesivir was effective, but this made no sense in terms of the currently established mechanism of action. An obvious answer is that it does something else, another interaction, it's just we haven't identified what that is yet. Drugs can do lots of things we haven't yet identified, and the newer they are they less we tend to know.
So you finally jump onto the wagon saying we don't know stuff, which is what I've been saying for months here. You think vitamin d is 100% known and we have perfectly accurate dosage guidelines.

Anyway back to the remdesivir discussion. What doctor actually thought this would work? I fully agree that we don't know things and some random thing could be the cure for covid. But we also tend to test things that someone with prior knowledge and experience thinks will work for actual reasons. Shouldn't we focus on testing things that we think could work because of scientific/logical reasons first and then kinda move to the "throw stuff at the wall" phase? Remdesivir is a known anti-viral (or at least developed to be one as I don't know if was tested against other viruses prior) so why would you think an anti-viral would work after the virus is gone? Why would you test something that is an anti-viral that needs to be administered at the hospital when the people going to the hospital most likely don't have a viral problem anymore? Why would you keep treating (to this day) with remdesivir when the trials already showed it didn't work and there is really no reason to think it'll work because anti-viral + no virus = no chance it'll work? Doctors mainly treat via guidelines and recommendations and that's why they treat with remdesivir because it's on that list. You're tip-toeing around the fact that it became a treatment most likely because it makes tons of money. If HCQ and ivermectin only had to meet the testing standards of remdesivir, they'd be recommended drugs too.

HCQ has 2 mechanisms that one would hypothesize it would work, the zinc-ionophore mechanism and anti-inflammatory mechanism.

Giving people drugs that make them ill with no superior benefit is unethical. It's as simple as that.
The drugs don't make people ill, we have decades of showing that they don't. Remdesivir creates more harm than HCQ or ivermectin and has been shown to be ineffective.

There's starting to be a push for getting kids vaccinated when the vaccines will make them ill and have basically no benefit to them.

Why are you declaring something to be true when you're also saying you're unable to research it effectively? Wouldn't it be better to have some humility and accept you don't actually know? Do you really think that "turned up on a YouTube channel I watch so I drank the Kool-aid" is a good rationale to decide who's right and wrong?

Again, I've said before and I've said again, indulging your demands for citations is supremely pointless because, fearless seeker for truth that you are, you're just going to argue they're bullshit. Don't bother posturing to us about having an open mind and following the science. You are literally telling us you have not read the science, and yet are still advocating.
Why are you holding my claims and your claims to different standards? If empirical data is needed to show a drug works then the same empirical data is needed to show it doesn't work. The data we have for ivermectin definitely points in the direction that it works. Kory and his team are 3 for 3 right now.

The main argument not to recommend ivermectin is literally that we don't have enough good data vs we have data that shows it doesn't work.

Why would I waste my time analysing vague bullshit from a propaganda article that obviously has no hard data or analysis, and clearly does not understand the difference between correlation and causation?
How is that propaganda? Look up when country approved ivermectin and then look at their curve. Hell, you can just wait on India and watch their curve as they approved ivermectin there. No propaganda website required to do that.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,674
3,814
118
So you finally jump onto the wagon saying we don't know stuff, which is what I've been saying for months here.
As would say no-one who'd read my arguments and opined on them honestly.

Anyway back to the remdesivir discussion. What doctor actually thought this would work?
Yes, what sort of moron might think an antiviral drug might work against a viral infection? Truly a completely absurd hypothesis.

The drugs don't make people ill, we have decades of showing that they don't.
THEY LITERALLY MAKE PEOPLE ILL: THAT'S WHAT A SIDE EFFECT IS.

There's starting to be a push for getting kids vaccinated when the vaccines will make them ill and have basically no benefit to them.
You remember how you keep posting those articles about how covid-19 immunity is long lasting? Okay, now apply that concept to the above argument. Also, congratulations on missing the point of vaccination being a population protection measure.

Why are you holding my claims and your claims to different standards? If empirical data is needed to show a drug works then the same empirical data is needed to show it doesn't work.
Actually, the responsibility is simply to demonstrate it works. Otherwise you may as well equally argue injecting bleach to combat covid-19, because no-one's proved it doesn't work.

The data we have for ivermectin definitely points in the direction that it works.
How would you know? You haven't read most of it.

How is that propaganda? Look up when country approved ivermectin and then look at their curve. Hell, you can just wait on India and watch their curve as they approved ivermectin there. No propaganda website required to do that.
Oh, so now you're suggesting n=1 is better than n=20? Okay dude.

Would you care to address the difference between correlation and causality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,420
1,846
118
Country
United States of America
Oh, so now you're suggesting n=1 is better than n=20? Okay dude.

Would you care to address the difference between correlation and causality?
No, no, it's a perfect scientific experiment. Literally nothing else is happening in that country of a billion people with ongoing strikes and protests and repressions and widely publicized vaccine shortages. Just ivermectin.
 
Last edited:

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,050
965
118
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/...H7RpeCFky-95SX4doIQjZ_Z9rmnLQqHKufBEbAdj3uPpY

Vaccinated Americans now may go without masks in most places, the C.D.C. said.

An interesting new development.

I feel like The CDC is trying to pivot from The Stick to The Carrot for the antimask crowd. Before everyone was still supposed to wear the mask but now it sounds like they're embracing the "Hey, if you guys want to get back to normal, take the vaccine and you can get back to normal again!" tactic instead.

It'll be interesting to see if it works. While it would be nice if people just got the damn vaccine, giving antimaskers a perk for getting the vaccine hopefully will be enough to push the vaccination numbers up to that fun herd immunity stuff...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,674
3,814
118
It'll be interesting to see if it works. While it would be nice if people just got the damn vaccine, giving antimaskers a perk for getting the vaccine hopefully will be enough to push the vaccination numbers up to that fun herd immunity stuff...
Cue everyone who doesn't like a mask going places without a mask and when questioned saying they've been vaccinated, whether they have or not.

I'd be willing to bet you a huge number of people developed temporary asthma last year, which thankfully they will make a full recovery from later this year.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,050
965
118
Cue everyone who doesn't like a mask going places without a mask and when questioned saying they've been vaccinated, whether they have or not.

I'd be willing to bet you a huge number of people developed temporary asthma last year, which thankfully they will make a full recovery from later this year.
Probably but they're going to lie either way and we're gonna have to deal with that shit eventually.

Hopefully by doing this setup, enough of the people on the fence will just bite the bullet rather than wait for the government to just give up on the mask mandate. While it would be nice if everyone just did it, we only need to get a chunk of fence sitters to get vaccinated to get ourselves up to herd numbers.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
As would say no-one who'd read my arguments and opined on them honestly.
Then why was their pages of me posting about vitamin d not being fully known and you acting like it was literally the whole time? Like some recommendation from 50 years ago is the end-all-be-all on the subject. It seems like you are allowed to make the "we don't know stuff" argument but for some reason I'm not.

Yes, what sort of moron might think an antiviral drug might work against a viral infection? Truly a completely absurd hypothesis.
NOT WHEN THE ANTI-VIRAL IS GIVEN WHEN THE VIRUS IS GONE!!!!

THEY LITERALLY MAKE PEOPLE ILL: THAT'S WHAT A SIDE EFFECT IS.
The vaccines make people more ill than HCQ or ivermectin. The side effects of the drugs are very minor.

You remember how you keep posting those articles about how covid-19 immunity is long lasting? Okay, now apply that concept to the above argument. Also, congratulations on missing the point of vaccination being a population protection measure.
Kids get less sick from covid than they do the flu and kids spread covid at lot less than adults (again, very much unlike the flu). We don't make kids get the flu shot and we are gonna make kids get the covid shot? Kids in the US are only forced to get vaccines for illnesses that disproportionately effect them and covid is not a disease that disproportionately effects them. Kids under like 5 or 6 don't even have the ACE2 receptors that covid utilizes. We'll reach herd immunity just fine without kids getting the vaccine as several have already been infected. Making the vaccine availabe to them and not requiring it will be far more than enough. Remember, these vaccines in the US are still authorized for emergency use. Covid is gonna be pretty damn gone really soon (in the US and other high vaccination countries) and all this talk about requiring this or that or vaccine passports is gonna look so stupid when your odds of contracting covid is gonna be so low because hardly anyone has it in the community to get it from.

Actually, the responsibility is simply to demonstrate it works. Otherwise you may as well equally argue injecting bleach to combat covid-19, because no-one's proved it doesn't work.
Injecting bleach will kill you, that's why. I'm sure bleach would work as it'll kill the virus and you.

Why do we wear masks when there's no data showing they do anything? Where's the responsibility to show masks work?

How would you know? You haven't read most of it.
I read that the recommendation is based on there not being enough data.

Oh, so now you're suggesting n=1 is better than n=20? Okay dude.

Would you care to address the difference between correlation and causality?
Nope, you said you didn't care to look up the other 19 and I said why not watch what happens in India? I say look at everything but you said you didn't want to.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/...H7RpeCFky-95SX4doIQjZ_Z9rmnLQqHKufBEbAdj3uPpY

Vaccinated Americans now may go without masks in most places, the C.D.C. said.

An interesting new development.

I feel like The CDC is trying to pivot from The Stick to The Carrot for the antimask crowd. Before everyone was still supposed to wear the mask but now it sounds like they're embracing the "Hey, if you guys want to get back to normal, take the vaccine and you can get back to normal again!" tactic instead.

It'll be interesting to see if it works. While it would be nice if people just got the damn vaccine, giving antimaskers a perk for getting the vaccine hopefully will be enough to push the vaccination numbers up to that fun herd immunity stuff...
It just shows how bad the messaging is. I thought Fauci was all about following the science? How could vaccinated people "need" to mask to be safe just a month back and now it's perfectly safe? The science hasn't magically changed in a month. Just tell people the truth. It's why most people stopped listening to Fauci and the CDC a long time ago. Just look at any Youtube video about such things and the like/dislike ratio (the dislikes are through the roof). The truth is that you were safe without a mask if you already had covid or vaccinated the whole time, just like not wearing a mask outside was perfectly safe for literally everyone the whole time as well. I get that you have to have everyone masking or else no one would, but just say that's the reason vs "you still need to be careful" bullshit.

Cue everyone who doesn't like a mask going places without a mask and when questioned saying they've been vaccinated, whether they have or not.

I'd be willing to bet you a huge number of people developed temporary asthma last year, which thankfully they will make a full recovery from later this year.
We have enough people in the US vaccinated and previously infected that it's not gonna matter. Just like Texas removing all restrictions 2 MONTHS BACK didn't matter.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male

Just wow... just really sad you need to go to court to get treatment for your family member in the hospital.

An infectious disease doctor prescribed ivermectin at Mount Sinai hospital but the pharmacy and hospital administration wouldn't let allow the doctor to give the patient their prescribed treatment. And the doctor became scared about giving an affidavit.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,006
118
Country
Sweden
It just shows how bad the messaging is. I thought Fauci was all about following the science? How could vaccinated people "need" to mask to be safe just a month back and now it's perfectly safe? The science hasn't magically changed in a month. Just tell people the truth. It's why most people stopped listening to Fauci and the CDC a long time ago. Just look at any Youtube video about such things and the like/dislike ratio (the dislikes are through the roof). The truth is that you were safe without a mask if you already had covid or vaccinated the whole time, just like not wearing a mask outside was perfectly safe for literally everyone the whole time as well. I get that you have to have everyone masking or else no one would, but just say that's the reason vs "you still need to be careful" bullshit.
The mask was never meant to protect the wearer, it was meant to protect people around them. Masks have a very dubious effectiveness in preventing the wearer from falling ill in Covid-19 but has a pretty good rate (some studies say upwards of 60%) of preventing a contagious person from spreading Covid-19. And since people who have had Covid-19 or have been vaccinated can still spread it the use of masks makes some sense.

But hey what do I know? I don't watch those youtube videos of yours, I just work in an organization where Covid-19 prevention measures are very serious business.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,674
3,814
118
Then why was their pages of me posting about vitamin d not being fully known and you acting like it was literally the whole time? Like some recommendation from 50 years ago is the end-all-be-all on the subject.
Dude, you posted the recommendation from "50 years ago". It was left to me to point out the large amount of subsequent data suggesting it was valid.

NOT WHEN THE ANTI-VIRAL IS GIVEN WHEN THE VIRUS IS GONE!!!!
Okay, so what you're telling me here is that you are completely unfamiliar with the studies on remdesivir. You know so little about it, you don't even understand how misguided your argument is.

A basic SARS-CoV-2 infection which is asymptomatic or mild lasts about 10 days, but longer is often observed for severe symptoms generally associated with higher viral load. The key study supporting use showed that it was more effective (as measured by reducing time in hospital) when administered early (<10 days after infection) than later. So, just what we'd expect from an antiviral and with what we know about the course of the covid-19 viral infection. The rationale for use of remdesivir was administration upon hospitalisation (which generally occurs within 10 days after infection) to mitigate symptoms worsening and speed recovery. Some doctors think remdesivir still has a use, albeit a niche one, and by your own principles of letting doctors doctor they should be able to do so.

There is not a substantial problem here. It's just a confection you've made up because you know too little to comprehend what's right and wrong.

The vaccines make people more ill than HCQ or ivermectin. The side effects of the drugs are very minor.
And the vaccines provide incomparably higher benefit: not least because they are proven to be highly efficacious, which is more than anyone can say about HCQ and ivermectin.

Kids get less sick...
Waffle.

Why do we wear masks when there's no data showing they do anything? Where's the responsibility to show masks work?
Oh my god. We have plenty of evidence masks work. Why are you still lying to everyone about this?

Nope, you said you didn't care to look up the other 19 and I said why not watch what happens in India? I say look at everything but you said you didn't want to.
I'll look at something when you make a case worth looking into. I've already told you what you'd need to do.

As it is, you've advanced an argument little more credible than that Martians made covid-19 and injected it into the bum of a pangolin in a Chinese wet market.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,050
1,277
118
Country
USA
The vaccines make people more ill than HCQ or ivermectin. The side effects of the drugs are very minor.
Data point of 1, but I'm fully vaccinated and the worst that happened to me was 48 hours of feeling groggy. Slept it off like a hangover and I'm back to 100%.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,042
1,706
118
Country
United Kingdom
The vaccines make people more ill than HCQ or ivermectin. The side effects of the drugs are very minor.
Why do we accept the risk of side effects? It's usually because the drug in question has a proven benefit that outweighs it.

Do you take random non-prescribed meds because the side-effects are "very minor" and for all you know they "might help"? Why not just eat... I don't know, wasps? Same arguments apply. Side effects minor; benefits not yet totally disproven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,595
703
118
Country
United States
Data point of 1, but I'm fully vaccinated and the worst that happened to me was 48 hours of feeling groggy. Slept it off like a hangover and I'm back to 100%.
My first shot didn't have any noticeable side-effects. Second shot had me feeling weak, achy, and just generally awful for maybe 24 hours, but I was back to normal after that.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,674
3,814
118
My first shot didn't have any noticeable side-effects. Second shot had me feeling weak, achy, and just generally awful for maybe 24 hours, but I was back to normal after that.
Pfizer jab, then? The second seems to be worse than the first, but for the AZ jab the first tends to have a bigger impact.

I've had my first jab (Astra-Zeneca) a few weeks ago. Pretty much the same - symptoms starting about 8h after, everything resolved within 48h. Felt bad for a day, but not so bad I coudn't work.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,006
118
Country
Sweden
Pfizer jab, then? The second seems to be worse than the first, but for the AZ jab the first tends to have a bigger impact.

I've had my first jab (Astra-Zeneca) a few weeks ago. Pretty much the same - symptoms starting about 8h after, everything resolved within 48h. Felt bad for a day, but not so bad I coudn't work.
I am beginning to think that I'll get the worst of both worlds. Got AZ first and am scheduled for Pfizer as the booster since AZ has been discontinued for people below age 65 in Sweden. Or I'll develop superpowers and adopt the superhero name The Vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,595
703
118
Country
United States
Pfizer jab, then? The second seems to be worse than the first, but for the AZ jab the first tends to have a bigger impact.

I've had my first jab (Astra-Zeneca) a few weeks ago. Pretty much the same - symptoms starting about 8h after, everything resolved within 48h. Felt bad for a day, but not so bad I coudn't work.
Moderna actually. All the people I've talked to for both Pfizer and Moderna seem to have that worse second shot.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,674
3,814
118
Moderna actually. All the people I've talked to for both Pfizer and Moderna seem to have that worse second shot.
Mm, they're both mRNA shots, which might be why. The other vaccines use a traditional viral vector.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,379
508
118
Country
USA
First shot of Moderna beat me up good, but I had the 'rona itself back in February, which supposedly makes the first shot feel like the second shot.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,850
470
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Moderna actually. All the people I've talked to for both Pfizer and Moderna seem to have that worse second shot.
*shrug* I had Pfizer and the extent of what I noticed in the days following was soreness around the injection site after the first shot and nothing noticeable after the second, so that's apparently not a hard and fast rule.