By the way:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

.

.

So what's your explanation (speculation, whatever) as to why this particular group of scientists and statisticians, obviously representing a broad swath of institutions around the world, and not obviously biased or beholden to anyone, came to the conclusions they did and concluded that the prior studies did not apply to the COVID-19 pandemic?

I need to understand that, I think, before simply rejecting this study out of hand for the sole reason it disagreed with prior studies.

I am not by the way merely assuming they are right, for better or worse I found their exposition fairly persuasive. Now granted this science is above my pay grade, but in my chosen profession I have had to learn a lot of complex subject matters and think for a layperson I am pretty good at it. (Must be a logical fallacy there lol.)

.

Has this abuse occurred on Net54, in real life, or a blend of the two?

I read some of the evidence differently than you do, and would take issue with some of your characterizations, but I respect the position you have articulated and find it more engaging to discuss than someone who simply comes in with a conspiratorial, denialistic perspective.

.

.

Thanks to you as well, enjoyed it.

Debate without name-calling??
Without my side yelling that your side is going to ruin America?

WTF?

Did you even read that? Specifically table 1 they refer to in the main text?
Persons who had no increased risk of serious illness did NOT have masks recommended.

Compared to Covid, during 2009-10 H1N1 was a minor leaguer. Totally unlike the version from 1918.
https://www.healthline.com/health/h1n1-vs-covid-19

Harder to catch, nearly always not much more than a bad cold.
The comparison isn't even close.

Conveniently leaving off the headings of those columns. The first is pretty much everyone the second is people at risk of serious disease.

Cherry picking data makes for a weak argument.

Masks are effective, something I believe the CDC dropped the ball on at the beginning.
While most aren't fine enough to filter out some virus sized particles, some are.
Surprisingly including some of the finer HVAC filters used mostly in labs.
Even more surprisingly, the non-woven fabric many reusable shopping bags are made from is very nearly equivalent to N-95, sometimes probably better. It's just not certified as a healthcare filter material.

What they do, and should have been obvious is to slow down the exhaled air, giving the particles less push to travel the same distance in the air.
In other filtering situations, it's also well known that any filter is better than none.

A video showing the difference in different situations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNCNM7AZPFg

And another explaining how much is stopped by what from a study using actual Covid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GndKYJ4uBI


I live in a city with a fairly high asian population, and it wasn't at all unusual to see someone -especially the elderly wearing masks before this, even outside of flue season.

Move to Texas. :)

I got my vaccine because of what I have read and seen. Statistically it is better to have one. To say otherwise seems to be contrary to the vast majority of health professionals opinions and research I have read. Ane at this point I am not wearing a mask where I am not required to. If people want to wear one, awesome, if they don't, awesome. I don't care any longer because anyone who wants a vaccine can get one. If they get Covid it's on them not me. And I am aware that the efficacy rate of the vaccines isn't 100% but it's 94%- 95%, so I am taking my chances. I am also aware we don't know of long term side effects. I still think the I made the right decision for me. To each their own.
:)
.

.

That is so ridiculous, especially given that when you look at the reality of how COVID is usually passed: being in close quarters for at least 15 minutes with someone infected. Some health experts (real ones, not extreme political propaganda lunacy) have said as much, and it also makes sense realistically, as how many people claim that they probably got COVID from taking a jog in public without a mask? It's been pretty clear that situations like locker rooms, homes, packed spring break parties, etc seem to have been responsible for most of the spread.

But of course not many experts wanted to come out with such info since it's taboo in these spots to publicize anything but the most overly cautious advice.

So if someone called the cops on me for walking around w/o a mask in open areas that were far from back-to-back people, my problem wouldn't be the "muh rights" part, but the sheer idiocy of considering it a COVID issue

I spent this past winter in the Orlando area of Florida. During my stay I did not hear of one person in the community I was in get COVID. I was socially active seven days a week playing golf, bocce ball, church, and going out to dinner. All of these activities included persons from outside of my family/ household. Masks were only worn to get into a restaurant, but not while we were seated. There were times where we would have as many as 8 couples in our group. We were from separate households, we all sat together, and nobody that I know of caught an illness of any kind.
My point here is, if you are ill, stay home. Hopefully this is something good that we will learn from all of what has happened during this difficult time. To many times people go out while being sick not thinking of the people you may come in contact with.

Do you mean to seriously suggest people in Orlando were somehow exempt from the surge Florida saw this winter? Show me some statistics that confirm that. What you personally heard of really doesn't mean much. I do agree sick people should stay home, obviously.

No offense to anyone but India is being ravaged right now. I think if it was so easy to avoid getting sick then they wouldn't be having the issues they are. Like I said earlier these stories kind of minimize what people have gone through.

Peter, I'm not saying that there were no cases in Orlando. What I am saying is that the people that I had direct contact with neither had COVID nor mentioned knowing of anyone in our community having COVID. Some of the people had started or completed their shots, some did not have any shots. There were people from different parts of the US and Canada in our community.
This was just my experience this past winter.

Understood but that type of anecdote doesn't really mean much, respectfully. Thousands of people in my town had it per the Mayor's office but I never personally heard of any cases. I don't think it's something people broadcast.

Culturally they do things much different than the US. Many of them need to shop for food each day, they live hand to mouth. Now they are forced to all go out at once between 6a and 10a. Life expectancy already 10 years younger than the US due to poor diet, etc, multi generations in the same house . Also, very poor health care system.


Riddle me this, India is 4x the size of the US, Cases are almost the same as US at 30 million, but deaths are 50% of US deaths despite all the other issues. Could 75% of the "deaths attributed to covid" probably be something else? I'm not say only 6% like the cdc commented that death certificates only said covid, but maybe closer to 12% died due to covid 19.

It's a shame anyone has to die, but without death, there cant be life.


That being said, at some point y'all will be forced to get the vaccine if you want to leave the house. If ya cant beat em you will have to join them or live in exile

C'mon, Ted, everyone knows the PCR test is the most accurate test ever with zero chance of ever getting false positives, and despite of whatever else you might have died of, if you tested positive for covid, you died of covid and nothing else. Get with the program, man. :D

"Manitoba Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious

"PCR testing was invented to find genetic viral material in a sample and has not traditionally been used as the sole method for identifying people suffering from a viral or bacterial disease"
"Dr. Bullard testified that the most accurate way to determine whether someone is actually infectious with Covid is to attempt to grow a cell culture in the lab from a patient sample. If a cell culture will not grow the virus in the lab, a patient is likely not infectious. A study from Dr. Bullard and his colleagues found that only 44% of positive PCR test results would actually grow in the lab"
https://www.jccf.ca/manitoba-chief-m...7YnWc-PlDM2I18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBS9j7nHDsM

:)

I have not read this entire thread, so excuse me if my comments have been stated before, but this is my perspective on the vaccine, and really, pretty much all healthcare choices. As many of you know already, I am a family doctor. I say this not as a way of saying I know better than anyone. It merely gives those reading a better understanding of what frames my perspective.

The problem with the US system is that we try to blend freedom of choice with absence of responsibility from the consequences of choices that go bad. This is true of pretty much every system we have,m not just healthcare. Understand that I am not advocating we change, but I think it's important to recognize the weakness that exists.

It happens all the time. People talk about the freedom to makes choices, even bad ones, and how it's their body, etc, BUT then expect health insurance system, and all who pay into that system, to pick up the tab when things go south. For example, people want the freedom to choose to smoke, but then want someone else to pay the tab for the lung cancer and the heart attack/strokes that they got, at least in part due to them exercising their rights.

This kind of all started back when the laws changed that made hospitals unable to refuse treatment to someone, in an emergency situation, because they could not pay. The idea was that it is inhumane to refuse in that instance. While I agree that this is cold, it does remove some of the responsibility from the individual to care for themselves, in a manner of speaking, like making sure they have health insurance or having a doctor to take care of their sinus infection instead of showing up in the ER, or not driving drunk, and other examples( I could go on and on). This along with many other incremental changes, mostly based in compassion, has slowly over time created a system where each of us has the freedom to choose, but expects others to foot the bill. (and if you don't think using your healthcare insurance does not affect everyone else's rates/costs, then you do not understand how health insurance works.)

Now, getting back to COVID vaccine specifically...
IMO, both sides of the equation should be balanced. What I mean is this, if there is a risk to getting the vaccine, there should be a s similar risk for not.

So, on one hand, if you get the vaccine and have a side effect, there is a very robust system in place for the person to be compensated for this event.
and to balance it out, if you choose not to get the vaccine, then get COVID, any healthcare costs should be the responsibility of individual and their family. Jobs should be able to say that sick time cannot be used for COVID related illnesses if you CHOOSE not to get the shot.
I think the same logic/system could apply to many other things as well, like flu shots, colonoscopy, etc. Don't get a flu shot, treatment for flu infection and any complications should not be not covered. No colonscopy? then Colon Cancer treatment is not covered.

To me this is the most fair way to do it. We each get the freedom to make our choices and live with the consequences of them. This may sound harsh, but true freedom comes with significant risk. We have, over time, attempted to remove risk from life. Unfortunately, removing risk through things like shared risk means that we give up a certain amount of that freedom by being obligated to each other.

I have personally seen many many people die from this disease. I am in favor of all adults getting the vaccine. I am waiting on the data for children to come out before deciding on if I think it's worth it for them.

The doctors and nurses and medical workers who have dealt with this awful disease on the front lines deserve far more credit for their efforts and sacrifices than they ever will get. I am sure it bothers some of them to hear all the minimization and outright denialism and conspiracy theories coming from some quarters.

.

As one of my favorite sites likes to say, the plural of anecdote is not data. But there is a lot of data out there on which to draw, although one can debate its significance.

I am kind split on the topic, tbh.

I know how serious the disease is and how many it has killed, but I also think the politicization of this has definitely created some misconceptions about the true reality. I read that there was a poll taken where 70% of those self identifying as Democrats stated there was greater than a 50% chance of being admitted with Covid. The Republican number was closer to 50% of people thought the risk was over 50%. We know the true number is 1-5%.

On the other side, we have lots of people who think that the hospitals have been exaggerating the death numbers by manipulating death certificates. This is a significant oversimplification as most people do not understand how doctors(not hospitals I might add) complete official Death Certificates. For example, Let's say someone has Heart Failure that is stable, and then gets COVID. The COVID causes the person's overall health to be compromised and the Heart Failure worsens. Now, if that person dies from the Heart Failure, the correct way to complete the Death Cert is put Heart Failure as the first cause of death, but also to add COVID as part of the cause as well.The rationale is that if the person did not get COVID, their Heart Failure may not have worsened and caused the death at that time.

It's understanding examples like these that show how the news media and politicians, on both sides, have really failed the American people in explaining the full story.

In a way, this illness has been both minimized and overblown at the same time. Only in America, could we pull of such an amazing feat!

Exactly. It's not binary. The virus can certainly be the straw, or brick, that breaks the camel's back, even if the camel had a weak back to begin with. That does nothing in my mind to minimize the role of the virus in that death.

And agree about the politicization, on both sides.

.

Science based medicine. You might like it, they are fond of pointing out various logical fallacies in arguments made by advocates of some positions. They love deconstructing appeal to nature arguments, for example.

The problem with the US system is that we try to blend freedom of choice with absence of responsibility from the consequences of choices that go bad. This is true of pretty much every system we have, not just healthcare.

Best observation in this whole thread.

“Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”

-Eleanor Roosevelt

Does the meritocracy healthcare system apply to everyone equally? Professional sports careers will be short. Every football player knows the risks of the game. Broken legs will equal certain death and well earned I guess if they knew what could happen.

The problem with the "absence of responsibility" argument of course is that the vaccines didn't go through the normal trials and protocols. You can't blame someone for being cautious about the vaccines which thus far have only been authorized for emergency use and haven't been fully approved. The track record of the lawsuit-ridden pharmaceutical industry is also a concern, given their history of often approving the drug first, and asking questions later.

Further, denying somebody care if they didn't get a colonoscopy is an arrogant and socioeconomically myopic thing to say. Many people simply CAN'T AFFORD health insurance. And they're not driving around in gold Cadillacs. Millions of people lost their jobs and their health insurance due to the pandemic. And there were already millions who didn't have health insurance before it - who were working full time, often at more than one job.

The vaccines might be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But for the time being, I understand and respect people not wanting to get one. I also understand and respect people willing to get one. It's a personal decision at this point.

If we are the owners of our bodies then yes. If the government owns our bodies then no. Simple as that.

With all due respect the "...can't afford health insurance" argument doesn't hold water any more.

I can only speak for myself, but as a self-employed/independent contractor I couldn't afford health insurance until the ACA (aka ObamaCare) came along. The ACA has literally been a life saver and my premiums have gone up and down as my income has fluctuated wildly, but was always affordable with a manageable deductible and was never tied to any particular work or job I did.

Anyone who doesn't have a job or health insurance at the moment can probably get nearly fully subsidized health insurance until their situation changes. For example my premium was dropped to $1/month when I was fully unemployed for a bit.

If anything, this is an example of why we shouldn't have to tie health insurance to jobs.

There are all too many instances of people who have healthcare who can't afford their medicines and treatments, and copays. So even if you have healthcare, it doesn't guarantee adequate coverage.

I'm glad the ACA worked for you. But as you said, you are speaking for yourself. Your situation is not everybody's.

I often find the issues with these discussions is that people on the board don’t know many other people who aren’t like themselves socioeconomically. There is this assumption everyone is on equal footing. If you think the issue with healthcare is that too many people get it, try talking to someone who doesn’t have it. If you think healthcare is so cheap it’s crazy not to have it, talk to someone who doesn’t qualify like you do. That’s the only way to understand the lives of others.

But that's the point of the ACA. Just about everybody can qualify. I have a very good friend who would qualify for a $1/mo subsidized plan, but he chooses to go uninsured because he's been indoctrinated to believe ObamaCare = bad.

There are still 12 states who did not expand their coverage.

The vaccine for Covid is free. Not sure what the general debate about health care has to do with it.

The vaccines are free, and the tests are free. But for many people who had covid and were in the hospital, they are facing absolute financial ruin.

And in most of the states which did not expand, adults without children are ineligible.

Also, the tests are free.


Who's really paying for them?

Dont underestimate a man's intentions when profit is at stake.

AstraZeneca, as most likely know, has been banned in many countries throughout the world then deemed safe then back to being banned again, including my country, Canada.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ses-specialist

Yesterday, as a whole bunch were set to expire tomorrow, May 31st, have now been given the OK by our Federal Liberal gov't to be used for another month past the expiry date!:eek:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7904824/h...iration-dates/

Does it really surprise anyone now who doesn't understand the hesitancy of some to get the vaccines when, since the very beginning, there has been nothing but a bunch of flip flopping back and forth with information on the whole pandemic schmazel, and even to this day, well into year 2, it is still continuing??

There was a time in March when the vaccine was banned in all these countries simultaneously:

Sweden
Germany
France
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Bulgaria
Ireland
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Cyprus
Indonesia
Portugal
Latvia
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Tialand
The Democratic Republic of Congo

I don't know which countries (if any) have since resumed use. Nothing to see here though. Keep moving along...

I'm not sure either, Dave, but I do know when some have been approved if you're between the age of 40 and 60 it is OK to use, but then it gets changed again to if you're 55 or younger, it is not it is not to be used, it sure doesn't reek like they know very much about it nor the possible harm it can do!

The thing is, which I have never found out, is why is it only safe if you are a certain age or between a certain age?? Why is there no explanation from the "trust the science" "trust the studies" or other supposed experts crowd????
https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...ed-2021-04-20/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/143445...s-blood-clots/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56744474

"The road keeps getting bumpier for a vaccine that most researchers say is safe and effective and has huge potential to protect large swathes of the world’s population. Less than a day after the University of Oxford and the pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca reported positive early results from the largest trial so far of their COVID-19 vaccine, officials at a US government agency overseeing the trial questioned claims about the vaccine’s efficacy"

"Lingering questions over the latest trial are “a real mess”, he adds"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00785-7

"Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the dangers of the novel COVID vaccine and it's roll out. This is a product that had minimal testing but is being pushed on the masses. Must we all get the shot for things to "go back to normal"?
https://rumble.com/vhp8e1-massive-wo...d-vaccine.html