2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,653
3,796
118
I was really expecting to be vaccinated next year, but I was able to get my first dose. Sinovac, not the greatest option out there obviously, but I'll take what I can get. Our family's Moderna doses were delayed by a whole half year, which is the length of the time they say is needed before you can get another vaccine, so I guess it all worked out in the end.
Sinovac's okay. On headline measures, the effectiveness is very low - in fact had it been just a few percent lower from trials it may have been refused approval. However, that is effectiveness against symptoms of any sort. If we use arguably more important criteria of preventing hospitalisation and death, it's pretty much as good as the others so ultimately it does the job. Thus although Sinovac would be last on my list if I had a free choice of any covid-19 vaccine, I'd also be satisfied if it were the only one available to me.

It is sad though that the only reason my family and I could get vaccinated was because of people's huge vaccine hesitancy over here. Our local government basically said "Fuck the priority system" and just started giving shots to anyone who showed up, because that's how many doses we have just lying around. It's about 40% distrust in Chinese made vaccines, 60% distrust in vaccines in general. Hoooo boy did the current administration completely fuck our healthcare.
:(

Vaccine hesitancy makes me sad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,574
412
88
Country
Philippines
Vaccine hesitancy makes me sad.
We just came from a whole scandal a few years ago where a rushed approval for a dengue vaccine resulted in some (supposed) fatalities, so the hesitancy is expected. But the current administration didn't help by sensationalizing the scandal for politics. And you know, generally fucking up our pandemic response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Wintermute

Elite Member
Apr 25, 2020
238
184
48
So I finally got the letter for when I can go in for my vac shots. Anyway, seems I'm getting Pfizer. First shot next wednesday. Second one late July.

About time. Basically everyone I know irl already got it. Most already got the 2nd shot.

How is everyone for theirs?
According to the latest estimate, anywhere from 30 days to 1 year and 12 days. Wonder if importing used syringes is an option, so I can make my own astrazenecamodernapfizersputnik vaccine.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Wow! Are you finally fucking get it? Yes, the evidence in this is really poor: BECAUSE THAT IS THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE. That is what the whole article is about: there is no adequate case whatsoever for Vit D being any use for covid (assuming someone is not Vit D deficient).
There is far better evidence out there that could be used in that article. It was a really weak argument that wasn't convincing at all. I provided far more information in the post in the other thread about vitamin d than the article mentioned.

I cited two sources, one of which explicitly stated a median of four days. For you to pick the other one and claim "my source" (singular) never said 4 days is just dishonest. That one says 33% admitted to hospital within 3 days, which is consistent with the other study finding a median of 4 days.
And the people that have the higher likelihood of needing treatment to beat the disease is more than doubled.

The time from symptom onset to hospitalization is more than doubled in the working age (20–60 years) and ageing (60–80 years) population as compared to this young population (median close to 4 days and a delay of more than 6.7 days for a quarter of the patients).

Ivermectin is not banned.
Hospitals have banned it, you can search to find stories about families of patients that have to get a lawyer and go to court to force the hospital to administer ivermectin.

Here's one such case in my Chicago-land area. And, by the way, she's off the ventilator now.

And this is why you are full of shit. It's not just the fact that you're pulling complaints about studies you don't really understand out of your arse, it's that you've only turned on some facsimile of critical analysis for the studies going against you. Had you employed the same skepticism in the first place at the mass of frankly terrible positive HCQ studies (that even now you either cannot or will not scrutinise to realise their overall awfulness), you'd never have deluded yourself it did any good in the first place.

Unfortunately, you did delude yourself. And rather than do the logical thing of backing down in the face of superior evidence, you're still here trying to prop up that delusion. You're really doing this for ego, because a) you've invested so much in trying to argue it does anything that you don't want to admit all that time and effort was wasted, b) you're clearly very proud of yourself (constantly boasting about being right all the time) and you don't want that spoiled and c) the oppositional nature of debate makes you too proud to admit defeat to the "enemy" (i.e. everyone else in this thread).

Oh yes you did claim it was an antiviral, even if you did not realise that was what you were doing. This is what I am pointing out to you.

It might in fact be an antiviral - at least for some viruses, and at high enough doses. Evidence suggests that it has insufficient antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, though. There is a actually a paper somewhere speculating why it might not be effective against SARS-CoV-2 - something to do with pH and lysosomes if I remember rightly.

Let's also bring back the fundamental problem (already pointed out some weeks/months ago) here that you claim that HCQ is not an antiviral, yet you are proposing it is clinically useful in a phase of the disease where it would be beneficial because it is an antiviral! You have a fundamental mismatch between your claims about its mechanism of action and its clinical use. Which you would realise if you actually understood what was going on.

And the evidence does not support your claim, but you are not willing or capable of assessing the body of literature to come to a reasonable conclusion. See above.
I asked for studies saying early HCQ doesn't work or isn't safe and you've yet to provide a study saying that. You keep reposting the same shit that doesn't prove anything I've said as being wrong. I don't even know how many times you posted that HCQ mortality study that includes giving the drug to people that shouldn't get it as a reason why HCQ is dangerous. I might as well just give steroids to people just infected with covid to prove steroids mortality is higher. The disease has 2 phases, you don't treat phase 2 with something that helps in phase 1 or vice verse. And your study that say HCQ doesn't reduce hospitalizations cites studies where hospitalizations weren't even fucking recorded.

I reposted the studies in the other thread. Nobody in their right mind would read either study and come away thinking HCQ by itself is an antiviral. HCQ can reduce pro-inflammatory cytokine expression.

It is if that's the dose needed for an adequate therapeutic response.
It's not.

Dude, it's not poor logic to point out the sheer irrationality of assuming that what goes for one disease goes for another. They are different diseases with different circumstances therefore requiring different public health strategies.

Also, there's a recent preprint come out that suggests immunity - at least in a substantial minority individuals - might be substantially weaker or less long-lasting than we might hope and they are particularly more susceptible to variants, thus reinforcing the idea that vaccination is a good idea even for those who have been infected. Just to point out this matter is far less settled and certain than you want to present it as with your over-optimistic assessments: that's why scientists are still studying this.
If there was a decent number of people (say 10%) that didn't have long lasting immunity (or at least the short lasting immunity of months that was fear mongered out there), you'd have real-world data showing it already. You'd have lots of people getting reinfected (not just testing positive as that doesn't really mean anything like say Chris Paul or the Yankees' players that tested positive after getting vaccinated) and you'd have people getting reinfected because of the variants if they were vulnerable to them as well. A Public Health England study found that less than 1% of 6,614 healthcare workers who had Covid-19 developed a reinfection within five months, even though they work with covid patients and the variants were out there.

What I'm reading here is that medical institutions distanced themselves from individual figures who were advocating incautious approaches. That's to be expected, and doesn't blow a hole in the notion of consensus. Consensus is represented by the positions of the institutions that represent the vast majority of researchers in the field. If individuals are promoting stuff that the institution feels is untrue, then it's entirely expected and right that they distance themselves.
That's not how it works. It's not like one or two doctors in a whole institutional have fringe opinions and the the institution is going by what 99% of their doctors are saying. The institution goes by other things like say a CDC recommendation or whatever. You can look back at institutions against steroids or anti-coagulants at the start of the pandemic, that's not what a majority of doctors thought. You can look at the lab leak clusterfuck, we were told the scientific consensus was that the lab leak was not just an improbability but an impossibility. That was never what the scientific consensus was.

An M.P.H.

So, a Master's Degree. You know that's not that rare, right? Several friends of mine have Master's Degrees, but I wouldn't be citing them as major influential figures in their field.

His professional working life, from his residency onwards, has almost entirely been surgical.
The "PH" of MPH stands for public health. And, no, he's not just a surgeon, he's also been working in public health for years.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,653
3,796
118
There is far better evidence out there that could be used in that article. It was a really weak argument that wasn't convincing at all. I provided far more information in the post in the other thread about vitamin d than the article mentioned.
Yes, "far better evidence", according to a guy who hasn't read it and doesn't know whether it actually is better evidence. And yet even when you are pointed in the direction of panels of experts who have done thorough reviews of evidence and concluded "Not much to see here", you still object. The issue being that you have no meaningful scientific judgement here: you're just attempting to handwave away the actual state of science with vague claims.

And the people that have the higher likelihood of needing treatment to beat the disease is more than doubled.

The time from symptom onset to hospitalization is more than doubled in the working age (20–60 years) and ageing (60–80 years) population as compared to this young population (median close to 4 days and a delay of more than 6.7 days for a quarter of the patients).
Yes. The latency from symptoms to hospitalisation in working age and elderly was more than doubled to over nearly 4 days, compared to young people where it was over 1 day. As you would have realised had you also quoted the previous sentence, or taken a look at the paper's figures. You are at least consistent in your incompetence or dishonesty at reading scientific papers.

Hospitals have banned it, you can search to find stories about families of patients that have to get a lawyer and go to court to force the hospital to administer ivermectin.
No, they haven't banned it, as your own article shows. No doctor in the hospital was prepared to administer it. You say "the hospital" as if the treatments are decided by faceless bureaucrats. They are not. They are decided by medical professionals as an exercise of doctors' rights to determine appropriate treatment. In this case, the patient's family had decided that doctors should not be allowed to doctor, doctors should instead be compelled to provide treatments against their best medical judgement. This is of course not that unusual: see for instance this, which amounts to the same thing.

You're trying to magic up this argument about "The System" impeding good, honest doctors doing their jobs who are bending over themselves to prescribe drugs you have misplaced faith in. In fact, the issue is that the doctors themselves are against the treatments you support. Your framing of events is merely an attempt to pretend otherwise and erase the cognitive dissonance.

I asked for studies saying early HCQ doesn't work or isn't safe and you've yet to provide a study saying that.
Months ago, I took a number of individual studies and pointed out they showed early HCQ didn't work. This includes Mitja et al. (2020), Rentsch et al. (2021), Boulware et al. (2020) and others. Meta-analyses also show they don't work, despite your whiny, ignorance-based nit-picks.

So you are just lying. Bare-faced, utterly dishonest lying.

I reposted the studies in the other thread. Nobody in their right mind would read either study and come away thinking HCQ by itself is an antiviral. HCQ can reduce pro-inflammatory cytokine expression.
No-one in their right might gives a shit what you think, because you're completely ignorant.

You are basically complaining that experts don't agree with your complete ignorance and misunderstanding.

It's not.
More piss and wind. You have absolutely no idea what dose would be effective.

If there was...
No-one gives a shit what you think, because you're completely ignorant.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yes, "far better evidence", according to a guy who hasn't read it and doesn't know whether it actually is better evidence. And yet even when you are pointed in the direction of panels of experts who have done thorough reviews of evidence and concluded "Not much to see here", you still object. The issue being that you have no meaningful scientific judgement here: you're just attempting to handwave away the actual state of science with vague claims.
I've been saying vitamin d studies are correlational the whole time. It's the same with mask studies. You either are for both of them or for neither of them. I'm only trying to get you to be consistent in what you consider proof. It really makes no sense to say people need to wear masks but say vitamin d isn't needed, and there's actually more data showing masks don't do anything than vitamin d not doing anything.

Yes. The latency from symptoms to hospitalisation in working age and elderly was more than doubled to over nearly 4 days, compared to young people where it was over 1 day. As you would have realised had you also quoted the previous sentence, or taken a look at the paper's figures. You are at least consistent in your incompetence or dishonesty at reading scientific papers.
What!? You're going to say that young people are going to the hospital on average 1 day after 1st symptoms? This is America, that is definitely not happening here.

No, they haven't banned it, as your own article shows. No doctor in the hospital was prepared to administer it. You say "the hospital" as if the treatments are decided by faceless bureaucrats. They are not. They are decided by medical professionals as an exercise of doctors' rights to determine appropriate treatment. In this case, the patient's family had decided that doctors should not be allowed to doctor, doctors should instead be compelled to provide treatments against their best medical judgement. This is of course not that unusual: see for instance this, which amounts to the same thing.

You're trying to magic up this argument about "The System" impeding good, honest doctors doing their jobs who are bending over themselves to prescribe drugs you have misplaced faith in. In fact, the issue is that the doctors themselves are against the treatments you support. Your framing of events is merely an attempt to pretend otherwise and erase the cognitive dissonance.
So no doctor in a hospital can administer a drug that's been administered over 3 billion times? Sounds more like doctors were told not to administer it.

Here you go. At Mount Sinai hospital, the infectious disease doctor at that hospital prescribed ivermectin and the hospital pharmacy and administration would not allow him to give their patient ivermectin.

Months ago, I took a number of individual studies and pointed out they showed early HCQ didn't work. This includes Mitja et al. (2020), Rentsch et al. (2021), Boulware et al. (2020) and others. Meta-analyses also show they don't work, despite your whiny, ignorance-based nit-picks.

So you are just lying. Bare-faced, utterly dishonest lying.
No, I looked at the meta-analyses you posted and looked at the individual studies they cited. A lot of the studies were for whether HCQ lowers infections like this one you cited. I've been saying for months and months and months, so me something that shows EARLY HCQ does NOT LOWER HOSPITALIZATIONS, and you keep providing me studies that are not about that. And you keep linking to the HCQ mortality study that was giving it to people that shouldn't get HCQ, no shit it doesn't help when it's given to people that shouldn't get it.

Nobody is saying that HCQ will lower infections so stop providing studies looking at that. You keep moving the goalposts, and then claim I'm lying. I linked to my post about HCQ from over a year back and my claim was no different then than it is now.

No-one in their right might gives a shit what you think, because you're completely ignorant.

You are basically complaining that experts don't agree with your complete ignorance and misunderstanding.
LMAO, the studies have so little to do with HCQ that HCQ isn't even in the title of the study. And I'm the completely ignorant one... just wow. NOBODY CLAIMED HCQ IS AN ANTIVIRAL, the studies literally prove it's not an antiviral.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
More piss and wind. You have absolutely no idea what dose would be effective.
The dose that's been prescribed for like 50 years or whatever seems like the dose you should give someone or at least where you should start.

No-one gives a shit what you think, because you're completely ignorant.
So you just keep claiming people are ignorant when you have no data to prove your point? If your claim was right, you'd have real-world data already to show me that I'm wrong. All those people that got infected in the 1st wave should either be getting reinfected because immunity doesn't last long or they should be getting reinfected because they don't have immunity to the variants. Where are these reinfections at then?

So I guess this Cleveland study is completely ignorant where more people vaccinated got covid than those that were previously infected?

Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,653
3,796
118
I've been saying vitamin d studies are correlational the whole time. It's the same with mask studies. You either are for both of them or for neither of them.
Illogical garbage.

It's even illogical garbage by your own position, because you are proposing we chow down on industrial quantities of vitamin D as a precaution, but are adamant that masks are frequently a worthless precaution. That just how shit and inconsistent your reasoning is.

What!? You're going to say that young people are going to the hospital on average 1 day after 1st symptoms? This is America, that is definitely not happening here.
I'm not, the paper is. Athough you might be well advised to check out what they mean by young.

So no doctor in a hospital can administer a drug that's been administered over 3 billion times? Sounds more like doctors were told not to administer it.
Yes, medicine is about teamwork. If the medical and other healthcare professionals in a hospital have determined that a treatment is not warranted, they might refuse it.

Take a pharmacist. A clinical pharmacist should know at least as much about drugs as a medical doctor does. If a clinical pharmacist receives a prescription from a doctor that he has good reason to believe is not in the best interest of the patient, he should not hand out that prescription. And this is the way many prescribing errors are caught: in fact some estimates are that about a quarter of hospital prescriptions written by medical doctors are wrong, in either dose or even the wrong drug.

No, I looked at the meta-analyses you posted...
But here's the problem: you're completely incompetent. You're like a caveman given a computer who insists it was created by a god because he poked it a few times with a stone spear. And then screaming until his face is purple that it definitely was created by a god, even after being informed it's just the product of 3000 years of technological development including a precis of the last 3000 years of technological development.

Nobody is saying that HCQ will lower infections so stop providing studies looking at that. You keep moving the goalposts, and then claim I'm lying. I linked to my post about HCQ from over a year back and my claim was no different then than it is now.

LMAO, the studies have so little to do with HCQ that HCQ isn't even in the title of the study. And I'm the completely ignorant one... just wow. NOBODY CLAIMED HCQ IS AN ANTIVIRAL, the studies literally prove it's not an antiviral.
Oh my god. You are just so incredibly ignorant and incompetent.

These studies are looking in part or full at post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), which is what you mean by "early treatment". The concept here is to prevent the development of the disease to a more serious stage by reducing the infection, and it is about antiviral activity. After all, the more virus, the worse the symptoms tend to be. So you tout the mechanism of HCQ as a negative immunomodulator (immunosuppressant) - at least as long as zinc's not involved in which case you de facto claim it's an anviral, but anyway. To administer an immunosuppressant drug at an early stage of infection is to impair the body's ability to combat infection, so the infection gets worse, and there will be more severe symptoms. An immunosuppressant (like a corticosteroid) should be administered where the body's immune response becomes too strong and becomes the key danger. So the rationale is therefore to either give HCQ early as an antiviral to reduce infection (plus zinc, if you're into that line of thinking), or later during severe symptoms as an immunomodulator to combat cytokine storm.

Hence the utter dumb as fuck bullshit you are filling this thread with, where you claim that HCQ is not an antiviral but an immunosuppressant, and yet propose that it is used when an antiviral could be effective but an immunosuppressant would make things worse, and that it is no use in late treatment when an immunosuppressant absolutely is called for.

Actually, the authors of these papers know what they are doing and talking about - even most of the ones who are putting out pretty dodgy stuff (e.g. Zelenko). They are correctly examining the antiviral properties of HCQ for prevention of infection (pre-exposure prophylaxis; PrEP) and "early" treatment (post-exposure prophylaxis; PEP), but immunosuppression for late treatment.

Your complaints are simply the complaints of a total ignoramus who has got everything wrong and is screaming impotently and confusedly at the world for not conforming to his delusions. The reason you have dug yourself into this hopeless and ridiculous muddle is your failure to properly understand anything in the first place, coupled with a pathological obstinacy and refusal to admit error plus a continuing inability to correctly interpret any science put in front of you.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,653
3,796
118
The dose that's been prescribed for like 50 years or whatever seems like the dose you should give someone or at least where you should start.
Okay, correct - at least from the idea of a starting point.

Which disorder, though? 400mg a week for malaria prevention, around 200-600mg daily for lupus or arthritis, or up to 2000mg in ~48h if malaria has been contracted. Next things to think about: why do these doses differ? How do we adapt these so they might be effective for a different condition, on what rationale and with what aims?

So you just keep claiming people are ignorant when you have no data to prove your point?

So I guess this Cleveland study is completely ignorant where more people vaccinated got covid than those that were previously infected?
They aren't generally that ignorant, you are.

That Cleveland study finds what it finds and that's okay. Now try reading about reinfection rates more widely. In fact, there are quite a few studies, with a range of protection identified mostly from around 80-99%. Quite a few suggest ~80%. If you were genuinely invested in the truth, you would be much more aware of these studies, receptive to them and cautious about conclusions. But you're not. Like every blustering amateur, you just grab the stuff says what you want and ignore the rest. I also know that these papers - even the ones you cite - tend to be very explicit about the risk of lower immunity to variants, and the potential for declining immunity over time. These too are caveats you brush aside, despite the fact they also sit there in plain sight in the same papers you quote mine to your convenience rather than scientific quality.
 

Phoenixmgs

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

It's even illogical garbage by your own position, because you are proposing we chow down on industrial quantities of vitamin D as a precaution, but are adamant that masks are frequently a worthless precaution. That just how shit and inconsistent your reasoning is.
LMAO at industrial quantities of vitamin d. Should I tell my friend that got prescribed 50,000 IUs of vitamin d a week by his doctor that he shouldn't take that much because it's an "industrial quantity" and I assume by that you mean unsafe? That's over a whopping 17 times higher dose than UK recommendation, I think I should fear for my friend's health now.

I've changed my stance on masks over time because the data that should be there just isn't there. Way back at the start of the pandemic or early or mid pandemic, why not do anything that is completely safe and may have benefits until we get more data? If the data shows it has no effect, then no harm was done; if the data shows it does have an effect and you didn't do it, then harm was done. If you were for masks a year ago, you should've been for vitamin d too, plain and simple. I was for both because I'm consistent with my reasoning. You weren't for both and you were inconsistent.

I'm not, the paper is. Athough you might be well advised to check out what they mean by young.
And the paper was not done in America either. People in America don't go to the hospital with symptoms that one gets from covid on the 1st day of symptoms because of the cost and hassle. Even if they see their family doctor, the doctor is just gonna say stay home, rest, and take tylenol if needed.

Yes, medicine is about teamwork. If the medical and other healthcare professionals in a hospital have determined that a treatment is not warranted, they might refuse it.

Take a pharmacist. A clinical pharmacist should know at least as much about drugs as a medical doctor does. If a clinical pharmacist receives a prescription from a doctor that he has good reason to believe is not in the best interest of the patient, he should not hand out that prescription. And this is the way many prescribing errors are caught: in fact some estimates are that about a quarter of hospital prescriptions written by medical doctors are wrong, in either dose or even the wrong drug.
Funny how you ignore the proof that a doctor was not allowed to give his patient the drug he prescribed that you say doesn't happen. A pharmacist should double-check stuff like other drug interactions, allergies, possible improper dose via typo. A pharmacist shouldn't not fill a drug because they disagree with a doctor's assessment.

Legitimate refusal: A pharmacist can refuse to fill a valid/on-time prescription for a controlled substance if doing so would harm the patient, such as when the patient is allergic to the medication, the medication would adversely interact with other medications that the patient is taking, or the prescribed dose is above the recommended dosage, although some specialists can and do prescribed above normal doses for a patient and the practice is perfectly legal.

But here's the problem: you're completely incompetent. You're like a caveman given a computer who insists it was created by a god because he poked it a few times with a stone spear. And then screaming until his face is purple that it definitely was created by a god, even after being informed it's just the product of 3000 years of technological development including a precis of the last 3000 years of technological development.
I know what the studies said. You keep claiming I'm ignorant but keep giving me poor biased studies like I don't even know how many times you posted the mortality HCQ study that you keep posting. If there were trials for steroids that were done for early covid treatment showing worse results and you used those studies in a meta-analysis with late treatment, you would come to the conclusion that steroids cause higher mortality. That's exactly why steroids were shunned early on because steroid studies from SARS and MERS were misread.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,400
438
88
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It's not just about suppressing the immune system completely (what steroids do) but modulating pro-inflammatory cytokines that lead to the bad covid symptoms. Vitamin D modulates that as well so I guess people should be told not to take vitamin d at all then, I don't see any doctors saying vitamin d will make covid worse. Modulating pro-inflammatory cytokines isn't going to show faster viral clearance or prevent infections but that doesn't mean it can't be legit as an early treatment. At least pair it with zinc if you're testing for faster viral clearance or prevention of infections, which none of your linked studies did.

Okay, correct - at least from the idea of a starting point.

Which disorder, though? 400mg a week for malaria prevention, around 200-600mg daily for lupus or arthritis, or up to 2000mg in ~48h if malaria has been contracted. Next things to think about: why do these doses differ? How do we adapt these so they might be effective for a different condition, on what rationale and with what aims?
You'd probably not want to start close to the toxicity threshold for sure. I guess it would depend on when you're giving drug. If you think HCQ will help against inflammation once it's already started (later in the infection), I'd guess it would make sense to go with the initial higher dose (400-600) for arthritis because the inflammation is present already in arthritis. If you think HCQ will help early, you'd start with a lower dose because there is no or very little current inflammation. That's what makes logical sense to me at least.


They aren't generally that ignorant, you are.

That Cleveland study finds what it finds and that's okay. Now try reading about reinfection rates more widely. In fact, there are quite a few studies, with a range of protection identified mostly from around 80-99%. Quite a few suggest ~80%. If you were genuinely invested in the truth, you would be much more aware of these studies, receptive to them and cautious about conclusions. But you're not. Like every blustering amateur, you just grab the stuff says what you want and ignore the rest. I also know that these papers - even the ones you cite - tend to be very explicit about the risk of lower immunity to variants, and the potential for declining immunity over time. These too are caveats you brush aside, despite the fact they also sit there in plain sight in the same papers you quote mine to your convenience rather than scientific quality.
I know about the 80% number, which is between the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines effectiveness IIRC. 80% is a great number. Also, the effectiveness number isn't the most important number, it's whether severe disease is near nonexistent that leads to leads to hospitalizations and deaths. Is a vaccinated person getting infected and having no symptoms or mild disease a failure then? Is it a vaccine failure that Chris Paul got infected after vaccination? Infection is no longer a "bad word" after you've already had it once or you got vaccinated. And if everyone, like sports players, were getting tested regularly, you'd probably find that a lot more people testing positive post infection or post vaccine. That's how one of the first reinfections was actually found when a Chinese guy returning to China IIRC was tested as procedure for returning (or else he would've never even knew). If you get exposed to the virus and are tested at the right time, you'll test positive for the virus, but that doesn't really matter much. Should the people that got an adenovirus vaccine (less effectiveness than natural immunity) go about their daily lives differently than the mRNA vaccinated?

I brush variants and declining immunity aside because we would have real-world data showing such already. The vaccines were made from basically the OG virus, and the UK has had the UK variant dominant in the UK when vaccines started rolling out. You'd have numbers showing the vaccinated are getting infected months and months ago already. And now the Indian variant is there, where are all these vaccinated getting reinfected at and/or getting severe disease? And if natural immunity only lasted months like the media kept going on about, where are all these reinfections at over a year later now and with variants in play for over half a year now? There's no reason to think natural immune are already losing their immunity by so much that they need a vaccine booster. If natural immunity was so fragile wouldn't either immunity be lost already or the variants would be causing reinfections or a combination of both of them leading to mass reinfections?
 

Phoenixmgs

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


On Saturday, the North Carolina State baseball team was eliminated from the semi-finals of the College World Series because of a handful of positive tests (of course, no one was actually sick) and an incredibly discriminatory policy of treating unvaccinated people very differently from those who are vaccinated. Having a team from college baseball, a sport that has not seen one player get seriously ill from Covid, disqualified from a tournament where the stands are totally full of — thankfully — unmasked and untested spectators, has set a new, incredibly absurd standard for the most insane reaction to this virus

Nothing illustrates the completely nonsensical manner in which we have chosen to deal with this pandemic than the fact that college athletes and healthy school children are still being greatly impacted by Covid restrictions, while almost no one is actually dying of the virus. These two groups, effectively invulnerable to the virus, which should have seen normalcy after just a couple of weeks of reliable data was available, are going to be the last demographics to return to pre-Covid life, assuming we ever let them do so.


More California nonsense...
---

 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,207
1,819
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
In what way? Will we be hearing the voice of Bill Gates in our minds persuading us to buy Microsoft products?
Something Something Microchip Something Something CRT Something Something Chemtrails Something Something The Patriots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,653
3,796
118
Something Something Microchip Something Something CRT Something Something Chemtrails Something Something The Patriots.
Honestly, I'm live to the possibility there may be adverse long-term effects for some people (as well as the already identified acute ones) to the vaccine.

But frankly, it's not like there's a shortage of long-term effects some people get from covid itself, is there?
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,207
1,819
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Honestly, I'm live to the possibility there may be adverse long-term effects for some people (as well as the already identified acute ones) to the vaccine.

But frankly, it's not like there's a shortage of long-term effects some people get from covid itself, is there?
Death, Hospitalization and Long Covid, among others.

I've yet to see what Side effects could be worse then 4+ Million people dead and many more had to go to the fucking ICU and have a ventilator stuffed down their throat so they could breathe.

Though I wonder how much longer we're supposed to wait for everyone to start turning into zombies. It's been close to a year since people started getting innoculated(and that's not counting the people who were part of the test groups) so you'd think we'd start seeing a lot of '"side effects" by now.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,032
1,270
118
Country
USA
Though I wonder how much longer we're supposed to wait for everyone to start turning into zombies. It's been close to a year since people started getting innoculated(and that's not counting the people who were part of the test groups) so you'd think we'd start seeing a lot of '"side effects" by now.
What are goalposts for to a paranoiac if not moving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock