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.
2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)
- Thread starter McElroy
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited:
Try giving this a read. Science is complex, despite your wish to pretend otherwise.
Ironically, given you just accused me of not citing papers, I cited papers precisely to defend this point. Once again, your attention, memory or honesty fails.
I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to argue. The bigger problem is, neither do you, even though it's your argument. Let's face it, you've lost it. You're arguing just because you've dug your heels in so far you've got stuck.
Again, you are completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding that study, because...
No, you don't evidently understand it was on viral clearance times, because you persist in calling it "shit and underpowered" despite it being both pretty well designed and sufficiently powered to have a good chance of finding a result.
The thing is, you keep claiming all these studies show a benefit of early HCQ. I have asked you before: if you did not get that view from that website, where did you get it from? Because you are completely wrong. I asked you over a half a dozen times where you got this idea from, and you refused to answer. You still refuse to answer. You are hiding something.
How many do you need?
Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis
Updates This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. Objective To determine and compare the effects of...
www.bmj.com
The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Background Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2...
journals.plos.org
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials - Nature Communications
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with...
www.nature.com
Dude, you have literally no idea whether a study is good or bad, except some made-up garbage arbitrariness in your own head which approximates to "does it say what I want to believe?"
This frankly bizarre trash isn't even worth dignifying with an explanation.
Oh, we should listen to experts in the relevant field. But more than that, we should look at the consensus among those experts. If you present a researcher who says XYZ, which is at odds with what 90% of researchers in the field are saying, is it really trusting the experts to buy into that fringe view?
Of course, most of the time you haven't actually provided experts in the relevant field. You've provided people like Makary, who is a surgeon with no professional epidemiological experience of note. You've provided those YouTubers, who have some level of broad medical experience, but not in Virology or epidemiology.
And when you actually do cite an expert, you dismiss their view as soon as it doesn't align with yours anyway. Like Makary, who endorsed vaccinating kids.
There's got to be some kind of inherent cognitive bias when the lone minority voices who contradict the majority in a field of knowledge are given more weight. Like, emotionally, we want the little guy fighting against the system to be right. The Galileo effect or something.
Oh hi everyone turns out footage exists that apparently shows the Wuhan institute kept live bats on the premises at one point
That's really not all that surprising. Bats are a well known contagion vector. A virology lab studying some "at one point" isn't abnormal.
Some of these people reacting and refusing to wear a mask are all acting worse than children. There's more flight disturbances going on, and these type of people attacking the attendents or pilots. Get the hell over yourselves you self entitled, spoiled, brats! It's gotten to the point where a guy shot a cashier, cuz he didn't want to put on a mask in a grocery store. For the record, the cashier died. The guy that did the shooting got shot and wounded by a cop. The cop got wounded as well. I have no sympathy for these people who can't have the decency to put on a mask and see wearing or not wearing one of some dumb political statement they should die on.
Last edited:
Except one of the claims was it couldn't have come from the lab as there were no live specimens kept at the lab only cultures.
And that claim hasn't been proven false? According to your own statement, the bats were there "at one point." That could have been a decade ago for all we know. If you have some proof that shows bats being kept there within the past year or two, please share it and we can reconsider.
True but it does show Bats were there and the databases that were previously online were taken offline and not shown to WHO either.
I suspect that's part of it. Another part of it is presentation style. Nobody's going to make a flashy Youtube video about how what the scientists are telling us is correct and we should stay inside & be cautious & sensible and such. But "Shock NEW data!! Lockdown not needed after all????" gets you clicks.
I mean, I'm sure the people in that video Phoenix posted do genuinely believe it; I don't think they're just cynically manipulating people knowing full-well what they're saying is untrue. I just think that videos like that are bound to get more shares and exposure, and are more likely to be made in the first place. Contradiction and intrigue are served well by the format.
This is conspiracy theory territory to some degree.
There's a suspicion of institutions (government, "Big Pharma", even the medical establishment) in there. I think another attraction is that conspiracy theories have a way of making people feel "special": a cult-like sense that they are a in a club that knows something everyone else doesn't, that they are better informed, more perspicacious. There's an aspect of control in two ways: in a epistemological sense (that it allows an ability to deal with ambiguity or uncertainty), and existential (security, ability to in charge of one's own destiny). From a cultural point of view, Western society is of course high in individualism with the a well-worn and popular cliche of the maverick hero who gets things done by going outside the inevitably sclerotic, leaden-footed and ineffectual "system".
In many cases, we're probably talking about accessibility. Understanding the real world is hard and often requires high levels of technical knowledge. Many of these people offer simple answers to complex issues, and bullshit is hard to expose. Furthermore lot of these "lone voices" are individuals who can aggressively and nimbly promote themselves because they can bypass a lot of the limitations that exist for those who operate more within institutions (by which I don't just mean organisations, but wider social disciplines such as "science" or "medicine"). Most people in institutions have responsibilities that mean they need to be careful what they say. Lone voices have no such restriction.
Bluntly, I think plenty of these people are high on the narcissism scale: desire for attention, grandiose claims, etc.
Oh yeah, these people are special. A special pain in mine and everyone else's asses with common sense or intelligence. To add to this, these jerks are just contrarians who have to always go against the grain, otherwise they feel like they don't belong. Or they're no longer the smartest person in the room.
Last edited:
I love that clip. You can see this in some film reveiwers who idly handwave by any number of simple movies, but when they come across a complex and often critically lauded film by a famous director suddenly get detailed, picky and snotty. As if to make sure that everyone knows that they really do have special insight from their film studies degree, despite their job mostly requiring them to describe varying degrees of cinematic mediocrity as varying degrees of fun in simple terms for unappreciative plebs.
Ironic enough, I somewhat agree with Brian on Titanic. I never liked the movie and considered one the biggest 3 waste of hours of my entire life. Slumdog I saw as okay, but never felt the need to watch again, and I never knew Cocktail existed until seeing that clip.
Titanic is an odd movie. It is in many ways very ordinary - the script for instance is mediocre. But as much as I don't like romance and feel a bit sneery about it ways (e.g. cliches and shallowness, Billy Zane's cartoon villain, its length), in other ways it is both very technically accomplished, and hits a lot of the right notes to be a hugely successful crowd-pleaser. One could compare it to (for instance) movies like Ben Hur. Superb spectacles despite their superficiality.
Wow, that link has really poor information in it linking to really underpowered studies (for or against) vitamin d. One linked study in the "mixed signals" section I can't read anything but the abstract since it's paywalled but it's seems like a super weak comparative study of people testing positive and negative and that was all basically. The far more correlational data for vitamin d than there are for masks so why not use the "better safe than sorry" approach we used for masks when vitamin d is literally cheaper than masks and does no harm?
Your own source never said 4 days was the average.
---Report from an academic conference presentation about a US hospital. 33% of covid-19 hospitalisations in the study were within 3 days of symptom onset, 27% after one week. Beats your unsourced anecdote by a lot.
Shorter time from symptom onset to hospitalization is associated with worse outcome in patients with COVID-19
New research presented at this week's ESCMID Conference on Coronavirus Disease (ECCVID, held online) shows that a shorter time from symptom onset to hospitalisation is associated with more serious disease and death in patients with COVID-19. The study is by Dr Annie Wong-Beringer and colleagues...eurekalert.org
How the fuck is this a strawman? I literally agreed with what you said. I remember the our discussion points.