Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
It's not worthwhile to say "they're usually pretty good" if you're still willing to say "they sucked pretty hard on occasion, so I'm choosing to believe they suck this time too."
I have advanced a specific series of points for why I am suspicious about the USA's handling of the AZ vaccine.

If you would, do you have any information demonstrating the US is blocking production of the Astra Zeneca vaccine and holding back a stockpile of what they have? Unless you are referring to issues at one plant that has production relocating due to issues at the current facility, I've found nothing to corroborate what you're saying.
Sure, there were production problems. The US government handed the plant in question over to one of AZ's rivals with production dedicated to that rival's vaccine, ceasing manufacture of the AZ vaccine. From a certain angle that sort of makes sense on the grounds that the US wants to prioritise production of vaccines it can use for itself, but it's a kick in the teeth for AZ. The USA said it would hand all its AZ shots off to other countries, and it sent some. Then it suspended further exports for "checks". Have they been checked and gone out yet? I don't know, I think not. It hardly seems like there's any sense of alacrity there, despite being in the middle of a pandemic. And the longer they are held, the more time Pfizer and Moderna have to sell their vastly more expensive and profitable vaccines.

At face value, all of the restrictions on AZ are superficially defensible. However, it seems to me that the US FDA's attitude to the AZ vaccine has been... unhelpful to obstructive at every turn. This seems inconsistent with how it has behaved towards other potentially promising novel treatments (e.g. remdesivir), where it has prioritised and facilitated access. US companies Pfizer and Moderna expect combined revenue over $50 billion this year from their vaccines alone - J&J much less because, like AZ, they agreed to sell at cost. That's a lot of money to turn heads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,339
942
118
J&J much less because, like AZ, they agreed to sell at cost. That's a lot of money to turn heads.
Can't wait for someone to defend that with; "Well, they shouldn't have. Capitalism, baby! Whoo!".
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Can't wait for someone to defend that with; "Well, they shouldn't have. Capitalism, baby! Whoo!".
Honestly, that would be a hard sell. That kind of hardline ideological devotion to turning a profit is pretty rare outside of hucksters and caricatures like Star Trek's Ferengi. In this particular case it would also be running up against historical precedent with Polio, which has been all but eradicated due in no small part to how the lack of patent on the vaccine made it much easier to maximize distribution. And that is treated as a triumph.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,503
930
118
Country
USA
I have advanced a specific series of points for why I am suspicious about the USA's handling of the AZ vaccine.

Sure, there were production problems. The US government handed the plant in question over to one of AZ's rivals with production dedicated to that rival's vaccine, ceasing manufacture of the AZ vaccine. From a certain angle that sort of makes sense on the grounds that the US wants to prioritise production of vaccines it can use for itself, but it's a kick in the teeth for AZ. The USA said it would hand all its AZ shots off to other countries, and it sent some. Then it suspended further exports for "checks". Have they been checked and gone out yet? I don't know, I think not. It hardly seems like there's any sense of alacrity there, despite being in the middle of a pandemic. And the longer they are held, the more time Pfizer and Moderna have to sell their vastly more expensive and profitable vaccines.

At face value, all of the restrictions on AZ are superficially defensible. However, it seems to me that the US FDA's attitude to the AZ vaccine has been... unhelpful to obstructive at every turn. This seems inconsistent with how it has behaved towards other potentially promising novel treatments (e.g. remdesivir), where it has prioritised and facilitated access. US companies Pfizer and Moderna expect combined revenue over $50 billion this year from their vaccines alone - J&J much less because, like AZ, they agreed to sell at cost. That's a lot of money to turn heads.
You are deliberately putting every piece of information into the most negative possible light, in order to turn the US producing vaccines for the rest of the world at no benefit to us in a bad light, for seemingly not being aggressive enough in pushing the vaccine we don't use that our government bought to give away to other countries. I'm not missing the underlying subtext that where you live and what your background is gives you in inherent bias in favor of the vaccine developed by a British university, you might want to step back from this one and get another perspective.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,144
3,344
118
You are deliberately putting every piece of information into the most negative possible light, in order to turn the US producing vaccines for the rest of the world at no benefit to us in a bad light
lolwut?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
You are deliberately putting every piece of information into the most negative possible light, in order to turn the US producing vaccines for the rest of the world at no benefit to us in a bad light,
No, I'm suggesting the USA is operating economic protectionism for US companies; although whether that comes from the companies or the US government or both...

In the context that economic protectionism is common, including in places you might not think. It occurs for instance in patent law, where it is frequently noted that countries have ways of favouring patents from their home industries when compared to foreign ones. It occurs when the USA writes furious rebukes to the EU when it deigns to fine US corporations, even as the USA investigates or pursues those same companies for the same offences.

How you come to the notion that the enormous profits to be made by Pfizer, Moderna, and eventually maybe J&J - US companies chiefly hiring US workers and owned by US shareholders - is "no benefit" to the USA eludes me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,246
4,518
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
How you come to the notion that the enormous profits to be made by Pfizer, Moderna, and eventually maybe J&J - US companies chiefly hiring US workers and owned by US shareholders - is "no benefit" to the USA eludes me.
Selective reasoning: find the side/angle of any argument that favors my reasoning, and use it as objective and irrefutable evidence against the other side's reasoning. This is why I seldom check in on Current Events; it's thread after thread of selective reasoning with some reasonably resourceful and intelligent people, yet not intelligent enough to stop trying to rationalizing with those who literally refuse to be rationalized with. Disappointing that this is the most active forum on this site; proof that people'd rather argue than discuss and engage in good faith.

That said, I'm not condemning EVERYONE who engages in Current Events, just suggesting that giving others an active platform on which to attempt to disseminate flawed reason with fruitless discourse is really disheartening.

I'll excuse myself. Don't even know why I posted this. Maybe that's the sinkhole of Current Events; sometimes you just feel compelled to drown out the inanity with reason, and it becomes and exercise in insanity.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,503
930
118
Country
USA
No, I'm suggesting the USA is operating economic protectionism for US companies; although whether that comes from the companies or the US government or both...

In the context that economic protectionism is common, including in places you might not think. It occurs for instance in patent law, where it is frequently noted that countries have ways of favouring patents from their home industries when compared to foreign ones. It occurs when the USA writes furious rebukes to the EU when it deigns to fine US corporations, even as the USA investigates or pursues those same companies for the same offences.

How you come to the notion that the enormous profits to be made by Pfizer, Moderna, and eventually maybe J&J - US companies chiefly hiring US workers and owned by US shareholders - is "no benefit" to the USA eludes me.
I mean, if you didn't cut the phrase "no benefit" out of context, maybe you'd make more sense out of it. It's not those things that are no benefit to the US. It's buying Astra Zeneca vaccines expressly to distribute them internationally that's not benefitting us. Which you don't disagree with, it's the crux of your argument, that the US is playing favorites and favoring the vaccines that benefit the US more. Don't argue against your own argument.

The point is, the US is not only hosting production for vaccines for you, it is paying for them with money from the federal government and then giving them away. It's not an act of malice to not push the less good vaccine that we're sinking money into over the ones better for the US. That's perfectly reasonable. That is not even remotely justification to believe that the US government is withholding already existing vaccines on purpose to help Pfizer make more money. That's insane. You're posturing that the US paid for the production of a vaccine, bought millions of doses, offered to give them away, and then withheld them anyway for money. Why? That's insane.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
I mean, if you didn't cut the phrase "no benefit" out of context, maybe you'd make more sense out of it. It's not those things that are no benefit to the US. It's buying Astra Zeneca vaccines expressly to distribute them internationally that's not benefitting us. Which you don't disagree with, it's the crux of your argument, that the US is playing favorites and favoring the vaccines that benefit the US more. Don't argue against your own argument.

The point is, the US is not only hosting production for vaccines for you, it is paying for them with money from the federal government and then giving them away. It's not an act of malice to not push the less good vaccine that we're sinking money into over the ones better for the US. That's perfectly reasonable. That is not even remotely justification to believe that the US government is withholding already existing vaccines on purpose to help Pfizer make more money. That's insane. You're posturing that the US paid for the production of a vaccine, bought millions of doses, offered to give them away, and then withheld them anyway for money. Why? That's insane.
The USA paid for the AZ vaccine for the simple reason that whilst the vaccines were in development, any one of them may have failed trials: backing as many as possible provided redundancy in case one or more failed, not out of humanitarian love. The USA is donating the AZ vaccine (except it sort of isn't, yet) because it's long since gone and bought them: that's a contract it can't back out of, the money is paid and gone. But it's not going to use them itself, so may as well give them away. Except it's barely even giving them away.

AZ's selling its vaccine at cost - that's about $3* a shot. Pfizer is selling at $35*, most of which goes straight into the US economy, enriching Americans. Even from the narrower perspective of US government finances there's a fair chance the US government is picking up well over $3 of that $35 in the form of taxes - after all if the US government is taking about 30% of the entire US economy in tax, we could reasonably assume every $35 made by America means ~$12 for the government. By this mathematics, it is profitable to the USA to smash every AZ vial and flog Pfizer and Moderna's instead (although going that far would be insanely wasteful and bad).

You call it insane that a country might do this, but they sort of do this already in foreign aid. The USA and most other countries doesn't usually just give other countries money to do with as they wish. They hand them aid with strings attached, such as that a substantial proportion has to be spent on the donors own stuff. So, "Hi Ethiopia, here's $20 million to buy some tractors for your farmers, but they have to be John Deere or Caterpillar." Lots of foreign aid borders on a government subsidy for their own industries. I don't mean this to say foreign aid is bad, but to point out that donating governments are very keen to see it benefits themselves as much as possible. This is of course related to the long-running controversies about the IMF / World Bank. Bail out countries, but with conditions of privatisations and so on, which essentially forces industries and economies open to acquisition by Western capital.

*These figures vary considerably by country - for instance, the US government is getting a discount, because it helped fund their research and trials.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,503
930
118
Country
USA
Except it's barely even giving them away.
Because of safety concerns from a plant in Baltimore, and they're giving away the more expensive vaccines in place of it in the amount that's being held back. You want to try again?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
Because of safety concerns from a plant in Baltimore, and they're giving away the more expensive vaccines in place of it in the amount that's being held back. You want to try again?
It's not just that though, is it? It's part of a pattern of behaviour.

The USA's current donations really represent stuff it's already paid for and can't use (partly through weak take-up in its own population). It has recently agreed to buy and donate more: from Pfizer and Moderna. But it could much more cost-effectively buy and donate the AZ and J&J (Janssen) vaccines. So why, precisely, is it paying for the two most expensive and (in terms of storage) least convenient vaccines when it would get much more bang for its buck buying the cheaper ones? Because, I would propose, its padding it's own industries and their shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,224
3,362
118
A natural escalation.


A group representing school board members around the country asked President Joe Biden on Thursday for federal assistance to investigate and stop threats made over policies including mask mandates, likening the vitriol to a form of domestic terrorism.

The request by the National School Boards Association demonstrates the level of unruliness that has engulfed local education meetings across the country during the pandemic, with board members regularly confronted and threatened by angry protesters.

School board members are largely unpaid volunteers, parents and former educators who step forward to shape school policy, choose a superintendent and review the budget, but they have been frightened at how their jobs have suddenly become a culture war battleground. The climate has led a growing number to resign or decide against seeking reelection.

“Whatever you feel about masks, it should not reach this level of rhetoric,” NSBA Interim Executive Director Chip Slaven told The Associated Press by phone.


White House press secretary Jen Psaki said responsibility for protecting school boards falls largely to local law enforcement but “we’re continuing to explore if more can be done from across the administration.”

“Obviously these threats to school board members is horrible. They’re doing their jobs,” she said during a press briefing.

The association asked for the federal government to get involved to investigate cases where threats or violence could be handled as violations of federal laws protecting civil rights. It also asked for the Justice Department, FBI, Homeland Security and Secret Service to help monitor threat levels and assess risks to students, educators, board members and school buildings.

“As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” the association wrote.

The association represents more than 90,000 school board members in 14,000 public school districts.

The letter documents more than 20 instances of threats, harassment, disruption, and acts of intimidation in California, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio and other states. It cites the September arrest of an Illinois man for aggravated battery and disorderly conduct for allegedly striking a school official at a meeting. In Michigan, a meeting was disrupted when a man performed a Nazi salute to protest masking.

“We are coming after you,” a letter mailed to an Ohio school board member said, according to the group. “You are forcing them to wear mask—for no reason in this world other than control. And for that you will pay dearly.”


It called the member “a filthy traitor.”

Last week, a crowd of up to 200 protesters who banged on doors and shouted at police shut down a school board meeting in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where members planned to consider a temporary COVID-19 mask mandate.

At a U.S. Senate committee hearing on Thursday, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona decried the hostility against school board members and praised their “unwavering support” to reopen schools safely. He said the lack of civility in some meetings is disappointing and, in some places, it has been “very dangerous.”

He made the comments in response to questions from Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., a former school board member who said contentious meetings are a part of civic engagement.

The threats have gone beyond board meetings.

The father of an Arizona elementary school student was arrested after he and two other men brought zip ties to the campus, threatening to make a “citizen’s arrest” on the school principal over a COVID-19 quarantine. In California, a parent barged into his daughter’s elementary school and punched a teacher in the face over mask rule.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,036
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Because (and say it with me):

IVERMECTIN IS NOT A TREATMENT OR PROPHYLACTIC FOR COVID-19!

Even the BigPharma(tm) company that would make yacht-loads of cash from its use as one has officially stated this.



WHY DON'T YOU WAIT ON THE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS FOR IVERMECTIN BEFORE DECIDING? WHY DOES EVERYONE MAKE THEIR DECISION BEFORE THE DATA IS EVEN COLLECTED?

Many countries in the world have given ivermectin kits to anyone that wants one. Even the bad trials for ivermectin show it does the same thing as remdesivir that is a "recommended" treatment and it cost thousands of dollars less with a better safety profile. And the BigPharma company that said don't use ivermectin no longer has the patent and is making a new covid drug so, of course, they are going to not recommend ivermectin, which is now their competition basically. Lastly, infectious disease doctors have prescribed ivermectin for covid here in the United States if you didn't know, but apparently you know more than doctors. Ivermectin isn't harmful, it's basically like masks, way not try it until we know it doesn't work.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,036
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Ah, here we go - now you've got data that makes it hard to argue masking is as useless as you think, you've instead moved the goalposts to a new argument that cloth masks are useless, which you're pumping for all it's worth in an attempt to pretend you weren't wrong.
What masks does like everyone wear...? CLOTH MASKS!!! Also, the study showed that people below 50 IIRC found no benefit from cloth or surgical masks.

No, I've read the recommendations from government advisories, medical organisations, etc. and they are all explicit that close proximity and extended length of contact time is a significant risk factor even outdoors.
You do know that recommendations don't mean they are scientifically right, right?

I KEEP ASKING FOR DATA FOR OUTDOOR TRANSMISSION OR MASKS OR WHATEVER, AND YOU CAN'T PROVIDE SUCH DATA TO PROVE YOUR POINT EVER. SHOW ME THE DATA OR STOP ARGUING. I SHOWED YOU DATA SAYING OUTDOORS ACCOUNTS FOR 0.1% OF TRANSMISSION AND THE PROFESSOR THAT LOOKED AT THE DATA (YOU KNOW, ACTUAL DATA!!!!!) SAID THAT THE NUMBER OF CASES ASSOCIATED WITH OUTDOOR TRANSMISSION WAS "SO SMALL TO BE INSIGNIFICANT".
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,036
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Again, this has been explained to you at length, plus sources, and you are embarrassingly wrong.

HCQ was initially proposed for treatment of covid largely because of experiments showing HCQ had an antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-1 a couple of decades ago. You've cited people like Zelenko, and people like Zelenko explicitly cited an antiviral rationale - you were just too ignorant and incompetent to notice. So at the time the study (Mitja et al., 2020) was conducted, antiviral properties (thus reducing viral load) was the primary hypothesised mechanism for HCQ. It was only later that you and other HCQ fanatics switched to an immunomodulatory mechanism argument, which occurred because the evidence such as Mitja et al. (2020) eradicated the antiviral hypothesis. And yet you and others have maintained this "early treatment" (post-exposure prophylaxis) defence, despite the fact that preventing symptoms worsening would be done by an antiviral vastly more convincingly than it would be done by the proposed immunomodulatory activity of HCQ.

You've been in a total muddle over HCQ right from the start, which stems from your failure to a) read enough science and b) interpret what you have read competently. I know exactly why and how you have done this. Instead of reading the science properly at the start and forming a conclusion from it, what you did was read some shit in the media that HCQ worked, and at best followed a few links HCQ-supportive media provided. Thus you formed a firm conclusion HCQ worked on unsafe grounds. From that point, when you met challenge, you were motivated to read the science only for defending your pre-existing belief: and so you still did not read the science properly. You just cherry picked the supportive bits, and tried to assimilate information and explanations in a disordered fashion to make sense of your original irrational conclusion that HCQ worked.

And then you've done exactly the same with ivermectin: you've adopted a belief it will work from inadequate science and bad arguments, and now demand everyone disprove it.
I literally showed the video of Zelenko talking about HCQ, he literally said HCQ doesn't stop covid replication. I never stated HCQ stops/slows viral replication. I literally said you can not take HCQ and take the thing in apples if you want, that's how little faith I had in HCQ in being some "wonder drug" that you said that I said and I never did. Something doesn't need antiviral properties to work, do steroids have antiviral properties?

If something doesn't work, I'm sure there's proof of it not working, right? Why can't you admit that you don't know if ivermectin works? The downside of trying ivermectin is basically as bad as the downside of trying masks. And many countries have given out ivermectin, are there any more dead in those countries than US/UK? Nope.


Plenty of people are being prescribed ivermectin. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the websites of the FLCCC Alliance and America's Frontline Doctors have created profiteering opportunities online pharmacies precisely for this purpose.

In terms of hospitals, hospitals aren't places where lone doctors are supposed to do whatever the fuck they want. They tend to be more collaborative, where doctors in units agree standards of care and best practice. If they decide against IVM, that will therefore be the line the hospital takes. There are hospitals using ivermectin - after all, Pierre Kory and his fellow IVM cranks are using protocols including IVM, and they aren't treating patients in their spare bedrooms.

There will be a lot of hospitals not prescribing remdesivir, either. But remdesivir doesn't have a fan club of deranged obsessives taking hospitals to court when doctors don't think it's any use.
The fact that people have to go to court to get their prescriptions from their doctors says it all. Or that fact that people are taking animal versions of drugs because they can't get them from their actual doctor. Until ivermectin is proven not to work, then there shouldn't be derogatory claims against. Instead of being rational and saying something very reasonable like "ivermectin might work or might not work, and we don't have any good data on it, but it is very safe" so a doctor and patient can talk about it and decide on a case-by-case basis to prescribe. You have ivermectin is the cure to the pandemic or "idiots are wanting to take horse dewormer" and you have to be in only 1 of those 2 camps. That's the problem with basically everything in America. I don't fall into extremist camps.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,144
3,344
118
If something doesn't work, I'm sure there's proof of it not working, right? Why can't you admit that you don't know if ivermectin works? The downside of trying ivermectin is basically as bad as the downside of trying masks.
I don't think you get diarrhea from wearing a mask. But it's absolutely on-brand for you to run into an argument half-cocked and getting the facts wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,073
1,210
118
Country
United States
WHY DON'T YOU WAIT ON THE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS FOR IVERMECTIN BEFORE DECIDING? WHY DOES EVERYONE MAKE THEIR DECISION BEFORE THE DATA IS EVEN COLLECTED?
Apparently, the links (relinking below in the hope that, maybe just this once, you'll listen to the experts instead of believing you magically know better) to the CDC, the FDA, and the pharmaceutical manufacturer itself saying not to use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 were too impenetrable for you to understand. Maybe if I use small words, you'll understand this.

Before trials, drug not shown work so don't take. After trials, only take if shown work.

It's really fucking simple, mate. It doesn't matter how many youtube vlogs you find saying otherwise.

edit: There are no "randomized controlled trials" for drinking Drano Max Gel as a COVID-19 treatment. Does that mean we're not allowed to tell people not to drink Drano? I mean "the data is [not] even collected" yet..........

 
Last edited:

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,052
2,045
118
Country
United States
Assuming COVID is still a thing next fall, which is looking VERY likely at this point, governor of California Governor Newsom is setting up to require children in K-12 be vaccinated in order to attend school, both public and private varieties. It will be first required for grades 7-12, then K-6, as soon as the FDA approves the vaccine for those age groups. Basically, the COVID vaccine will be treated like the MMR vaccine in terms of getting schooled.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,339
942
118
Assuming COVID is still a thing next fall, which is looking VERY likely at this point, governor of California Governor Newsom is setting up to require children in K-12 be vaccinated in order to attend school, both public and private varieties. It will be first required for grades 7-12, then K-6, as soon as the FDA approves the vaccine for those age groups. Basically, the COVID vaccine will be treated like the MMR vaccine in terms of getting schooled.

Good.

This is the correct way forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock