Why would you compare covid deaths with prior immunity to influenza deaths without prior immunity? Make a like-for-like comparison, or don't make a comparison at all.
Who doesn't have some sort of prior immunity to the flu? What kid growing up didn't catch the flu at some point? The flu has been endemic for thousands of years. Comparing a novel virus to a virus that we don't even know when it started because it's so old isn't close to a like-for-like comparison. The question, especially now, is how deadly is covid post-immunity not how deadly it was to people in 2020. And if anyone doesn't want immunity when it's freely available (in rich western nations), then it's your own fault for not getting said immunity and you face the consequences. The question is whether covid is within society's normal risk tolerance post-immunity and that's what I'm asking. I'm willing to bet it's pretty close to the flu in risk.
I'm saying if you're going to use technical terms, use them properly. Otherwise you're just telling everyone who knows their stuff you don't understand the subject.
I did, I was referring to the IFR for someone without immunity, which is what everyone wanted to know when this started since nobody had immunity. Now, not many people care about whatever the IFR is now because it's far within probably at least 99% of the population's risk tolerance.
He's asking people to waste their money on something that has a reasonable chance of decreasing their quality of life in return for most likely nothing. At least if they bought lottery tickets they might win something, and with no risk of headaches, diarrhoea and skin rashes.
Really, waste their money on Ivermectin? You mean, just give up like an ounce of Starbucks coffee that is probably more expensive than Ivermectin. Remdesivir is wasting tons more money. The benefit of placebo is real though. Oh no, not a headache!!! that you'll probably get from covid anyway.
1) If it causes shorter hospital stays, then it doesn't do nothing.
2) The evidence base is not remotely clear that ivermectin reduces hospitalisation time.
And that's remdesivir that you argued is good that it reduced hospital stays and why it was good to use. I agree shorter hospital stays mean it doesn't do anything, but if remdesivir is still greatly used for that purpose, then why not ivermectin? I just remember 1 or 2 of the ivermectin studies that showed no mortality improvement showed hospital stay decrease. I honestly don't care if the evidence is clear or not on that because like I said, I agree hospital stay reduction doesn't mean much. And the hospital stay reduction could just be placebo effects.
And what that doesn't tell you is how much they're using it.
If they have a full shelving unit for remdesivir, they are using it. Unless it was right after the time they stopped using it, and it was just sitting there. Even then that means it was used for well over a year when it was known it didn't do anything.
It's very nice that you've read some words that you can type to pretend you know what you're talking about, but see above re. terminology. Actually, you don't know what you're talking about: you have an armchair expert's illusion of knowledge and understanding.
That's literally what people that perform studies and peer review studies have said numerous times. Pretty much everything I say I listened to an expert talking about. You're not arguing with me on most of these topics but people that know more than either of us.
No, what happened is that you emotionally invested too much in the claim that masks did nothing. When data increasingly rolled in saying that they were in fact useful, this merely reinforced your commitment to your existing belief that they were not. This is a well-recognised psychological phenomenon. One might note in relation to this your overconfidence that you understand what's going on (despite repeatedly having to be corrected), and repeated claims that you have been right about everything.
Nope, I was for masks early on when a lot people here said they didn't work (as no evidence of them working beforehand). Here's a
post of mine from April 2020. There's been no convincing evidence that masks work, which is why I've changed my stance. The Bangladesh study is far from convincing (some of the groups got more covid in the masked group) along with any long-term data you look at comparing infection rates between masked places and non-masked places shows basically no difference. You're the one that is emotionally invested into masks working because the data we do have is not close to convincing. If mask data was the same as some hypothetical drug, you'd say it doesn't work or there's not good enough evidence. You might as say that some drug works because it works in vitro if you're gonna conclude masks work because some rather pointless study with dummies recorded with a cell phone camera.
No they didn't.
This report describes how children and adolescents were more likely to receive a new diabetes diagnosis after infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
www.cdc.gov
And why do you consider a link far-fetched?
We look at the evidence behind reports coronavirus can cause diabetes or make it worse, and explain why it's too early to know for sure yet.
www.diabetes.org.uk
OMG, covid doesn't cause diabetes. The reason there's more diabetes in people hospitalized with covid is because obesity is one of the highest risk conditions for severe covid and most people are obese because of too much sugar obviously, which causes diabetes over time. They were probably borderline diabetic beforehand.