COVID-19 News

[marduk]

And that same fear is behind most of the compliance with the measures, including vaccination. Fear of becoming a COVID victim, fear of enforcement, fear of social disapproval, fear that someone they care about, like their kids,( who virtually never die from the COVID ) will die if they don't get them injected. Maybe you're not afraid of any of it, and you're just following along with all the good obedient citizens. Or maybe you've already fallen for the official FUD and are projecting it back onto me to make you feel confident about your decisions?

Do you wear your seatbelt when you drive your (registered) car on (traffic enforced) roads while carrying your (government issued and tested) licence?

If you do, why do you?

 

[Randall]

Do you wear your seatbelt when you drive your (registered) car on (traffic enforced) roads while carrying your (government issued and tested) licence?

If you do, why do you?

I don't agree with seatbelt laws either, but we could get into that whole issue as well on another thread if you want. Like the kinds of injuries caused by seat belts in accidents, and the fact that people who are in accidents and who aren't wearing seat belts never end-up as part of the balancing statistic, precisely because nothing happened to them. You never hear a news story about someone who was in a car accident without a seat belt and walked away without needing medical care. You only hear about the ones who weren't wearing seatbelts but did need care.

Besides, they're only superficially the same. It's a straw man argument. A seatbelt isn't putting something toxic into your body. There's no certain risk from wearing a seatbelt. There is from getting a vaccine. Also there's a range of danger when a safety harness is obviously going to be more likely to be advantageous than not. When I feel that's the case, then I wear it, but honestly, I wear it more because I want to avoid the authorities.

It's far more likely you'll get dinged for a ticket than get into an accident where a seatbelt saves you from serious injury, and the only time I was in an accident without a seat belt, I'm glad I wasn't wearing one, or the injury would have been worse. I haven't checked the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that based on them, and extrapolating forward, far more tickets have been handed out than the number of accidents that would have happened where a seatbelt would have made an appreciable difference.

They're a nice option. But that's what they should be ( IMO ) – an option.

To Add: We still ought to get together for that coffee. This is a very interesting discussion.

 

[marduk]

I don't agree with seatbelt laws either, but we could get into that whole issue as well on another thread if you want. Like the kinds of injuries caused by seat belts in accidents, and the fact that people who are in accidents and who aren't wearing seat belts never end-up as part of the balancing statistic, precisely because nothing happened to them. You never hear a news story about someone who was in a car accident without a seat belt and walked away without needing medical care. You only hear about the ones who weren't wearing seatbelts but did need care.

But that's exactly my point - leads to a potential confirmation bias in your thinking.

Seatbelts clearly save lives and are mandated across much of the industrialized world... but you don't agree with them, either. And I get why; I also have a clear contrarian streak in my nature, too. If there's a side to be taken, I tend to take the underdog one with a bias towards freedom as well.

Besides, they're only superficially the same. It's a straw man argument. A seatbelt isn't putting something toxic into your body. There's no certain risk from wearing a seatbelt. There is from getting a vaccine. Also there's a range of danger when a safety harness is obviously going to be more likely to be advantageous than not. When I feel that's the case, then I wear it, but honestly, I wear it more because I want to avoid the authorities.

You just clearly stated above - injuries sustained because of wearing seatbelts.

It's far more likely you'll get dinged for a ticket than get into an accident where a seatbelt saves you from serious injury, and the only time I was in an accident without a seat belt, I'm glad I wasn't wearing one, or the injury would have been worse. I haven't checked the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that based on them, and extrapolating forward, far more tickets have been handed out than the number of accidents that would have happened where a seatbelt would have made an appreciable difference.

They're a nice option. But that's what they should be ( IMO ) – an option.

I 100% think it's someone's personal choice to get vaccinated or not.
But I also 100% reserve the right to think differently about someone that doesn't. Not that I'd necessarily eject them from my life - I have several buddies in the dojo for example that refuse - but we do get into rousing debates about it!

To Add: We still ought to get together for that coffee. This is a very interesting discussion.

Sent you a note a couple weeks ago - maybe you missed it? I'll probably be back in the office one day next week, maybe get together in the afternoon afterward?

 

[Randall]

But that's exactly my point - leads to a potential confirmation bias in your thinking.

Seatbelts clearly save lives and are mandated across much of the industrialized world... but you don't agree with them, either. And I get why; I also have a clear contrarian streak in my nature, too. If there's a side to be taken, I tend to take the underdog one with a bias towards freedom as well.


You just clearly stated above - injuries sustained because of wearing seatbelts.

I 100% think it's someone's personal choice to get vaccinated or not.
But I also 100% reserve the right to think differently about someone that doesn't. Not that I'd necessarily eject them from my life - I have several buddies in the dojo for example that refuse - but we do get into rousing debates about it!

Sent you a note a couple weeks ago - maybe you missed it? I'll probably be back in the office one day next week, maybe get together in the afternoon afterward?

Sounds good. What I love about our exchanges is that we can hash them out without it getting nasty. When you think of how polarizing some of these things can be, it's a rare commodity.

 

[marduk]

Sounds good. What I love about our exchanges is that we can hash them out without it getting nasty. When you think of how polarizing some of these things can be, it's a rare commodity.

What I don't like - and turns me off of "UFOlogy" as well - is the whole conspiracy mindset. Sure it's all fun and games to think about who shot JFK. But the end game here is to weaponize conspiratorial thinking to undermine science, education, rational thinking to try to overthrow governments (like Jan 6th) or weaponize idiocracy for political gain (conservative theatrics on both sides of the border undermining covid science).

It sickens me, man. There's very little difference between Trump calling for overthrowing his own government (and being followed by fascists), sewing the seeds of distrust in vaccines or masks (and being listened to by self-appointed experts), climate denialism, or heaven's gate.

It all leads to death, trauma, and people's lives being thrown on the funeral pyre just out of sheer gleeful willingness to sacrifice other's foolishness for the perceived gain of power and influence.

Not at all saying that's what you're doing, but I am saying that all of this nonsense is being weaponized. Including Elizondo & co. I firmly believe while we got some interesting stuff and finally an admission that something's going on... but the real intent here is to re-focus everyone's eyes on what the US Military has to say about it... because they're somehow the experts here. All nonsense that smacks of the same thinking as "what you're reading and what you're seeing is not what's happening."

 

[Randall]

What I don't like - and turns me off of "UFOlogy" as well - is the whole conspiracy mindset. Sure it's all fun and games to think about who shot JFK. But the end game here is to weaponize conspiratorial thinking to undermine science, education, rational thinking to try to overthrow governments (like Jan 6th) or weaponize idiocracy for political gain (conservative theatrics on both sides of the border undermining covid science).

It sickens me, man. There's very little difference between Trump calling for overthrowing his own government (and being followed by fascists), sewing the seeds of distrust in vaccines or masks (and being listened to by self-appointed experts), climate denialism, or heaven's gate.

It all leads to death, trauma, and people's lives being thrown on the funeral pyre just out of sheer gleeful willingness to sacrifice other's foolishness for the perceived gain of power and influence.

Not at all saying that's what you're doing, but I am saying that all of this nonsense is being weaponized. Including Elizondo & co. I firmly believe while we got some interesting stuff and finally an admission that something's going on... but the real intent here is to re-focus everyone's eyes on what the US Military has to say about it... because they're somehow the experts here. All nonsense that smacks of the same thinking as "what you're reading and what you're seeing is not what's happening."

I appreciate what you're saying. One of the things that I find disheartening is being lumped in with the types you mention when I'm not like that, because the reasoning I have can be used ( weaponized ) by them in that manner. I suppose we ought not forget that the misinformation on the pro-side of these debates can also be "weaponized" — quite literally, when the authorities are given sanction to use force to suppress information contrary to their agenda. It works both ways.

 

[marduk]

I appreciate what you're saying. One of the things that I find disheartening is being lumped in with the types you mention when I'm not like that, because the reasoning I have can be used ( weaponized ) by them in that manner. I suppose we ought not forget that the misinformation on the pro-side of these debates can also be "weaponized" — quite literally, when the authorities are given sanction to use force to suppress information contrary to their agenda. It works both ways.

Sure.

But only one side of the covid debate ends up in large numbers of dead people.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

There have been a number of cases where people, dying of COVID, beg doctors to vaccinate them to save their lives. But by then it's too late.

In the U.S., the vast vast majority of people who are hospitalized were not vaccinated. That's a hard lesson to learn. Yes there are "breakthrough" infections impacting people who were fully vaccinated, since no vaccine is perfect, but by and large the infections are far less severe.

Again, in the U.S., the current state of the virus has made it a Republican virus. The vast majority of those who won't get the vaccine are Republicans, and, as I said above, these are the people who mostly fill hospitals and claim people's lives. That's why more Republican office holders and cable talking heads are begging people to become vaccinated. They don't want to kill their own followers.

At this point, attacks on the stats aren't helpful. We are talking of hundreds of cities, 50 states, etc. They can't all be involved in a massive conspiracy to fake results to — fake results? Kill people?

 

[Randall]

Sure.

But only one side of the covid debate ends up in large numbers of dead people.

Hardly

 

[Randall]

There have been a number of cases where people, dying of COVID, beg doctors to vaccinate them to save their lives. But by then it's too late.

In the U.S., the vast vast majority of people who are hospitalized were not vaccinated. That's a hard lesson to learn. Yes there are "breakthrough" infections impacting people who were fully vaccinated, since no vaccine is perfect, but by and large the infections are far less severe.

Again, in the U.S., the current state of the virus has made it a Republican virus. The vast majority of those who won't get the vaccine are Republicans, and, as I said above, these are the people who mostly fill hospitals and claim people's lives. That's why more Republican office holders and cable talking heads are begging people to become vaccinated. They don't want to kill their own followers.

At this point, attacks on the stats aren't helpful. We are talking of hundreds of cities, 50 states, etc. They can't all be involved in a massive conspiracy to fake results to — fake results? Kill people?

That all may be the case, but saying stats don't matter is changing the rules. When it was all about saving even one person's life, then that was good enough for some politicians to justify the lockdowns and authoritarian enforcement. But when more than one person has died from the vaccine, then suddenly it's ( forget about the statistics – it's a Republican disease ).

Let's remove the politics. It's not a "Republican disease". It's a viral disease, and it affects humans regardless of their politics, and everyone, regardless of their politics deserve a healthcare system that is capable of taking better care of them down there than it's doing. But instead of focusing on that ( which is what people should be doing ), it's the typical game of get the citizens to blame each other, while the pharmaceutical companies make billions.

Oh yes, and let's make any normal healthy person who doesn't want their product injected into their body into public enemy number one and coerce them through "COVID Protocols" that deny them travel, employment, and education unless they comply. People fought and died in wars to preserve their rights not to have to put-up with that BS. So maybe it's worth it for them to keep their choice and take the risk.

 

[marduk]

Hardly

~640,000 dead in US & Canada.

Of 187M people vaccinated with 342 million doses in the US, a maximum of 6,300 deaths have occurred as a result of the vaccine. None of these deaths have been definitively ascribed to the vaccine, however let's treat this as a theoretical maximum.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

Therefore, if we fully vaccinated all 332M Americans and 38M Canadians, we would have approximately 13,000 deaths. Again, that number is likely an order of magnitude too high, but for the sake of argument let's call it that.

Help me understand how 13,000 is greater than 640,000 and counting. We will likely surpass 1M according to some estimates I've seen due simply to vaccine hesitancy.

 

[marduk]

Let's remove the politics. It's not a "Republican disease". It's a viral disease, and it affects humans regardless of their politics, and everyone, regardless of their politics deserve a healthcare system that is capable of taking better care of them down there than it's doing.

Sure, it will infect anyone, but it's primarily republicans catching it now in the US, and that's primarily due to vaccine hesitancy, which is primarily driven by politics in the US.

So it's kinda hard to remove politics when politics is now the root cause of many of the problems.

Including here in Alberta. No longer requiring those with Covid to isolate is insane.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That all may be the case, but saying stats don't matter is changing the rules. When it was all about saving even one person's life, then that was good enough for some politicians to justify the lockdowns and authoritarian enforcement. But when more than one person has died from the vaccine, then suddenly it's ( forget about the statistics – it's a Republican disease ).

Let's remove the politics. It's not a "Republican disease". It's a viral disease, and it affects humans regardless of their politics, and everyone, regardless of their politics deserve a healthcare system that is capable of taking better care of them down there than it's doing. But instead of focusing on that ( which is what people should be doing ), it's the typical game of get the citizens to blame each other, while the pharmaceutical companies make billions.

Oh yes, and let's make any normal healthy person who doesn't want their product injected into their body into public enemy number one and coerce them through "COVID Protocols" that deny them travel, employment, and education unless they comply. People fought and died in wars to preserve their rights not to have to put-up with that BS. So maybe it's worth it for them to keep their choice and take the risk.

It's a disease of the unvaccinated, and most of the unvaccinated are Republicans.

Denying the stats matters.

 

[Randall]

~640,000 dead in US & Canada.

Of 187M people vaccinated with 342 million doses in the US, a maximum of 6,300 deaths have occurred as a result of the vaccine. None of these deaths have been definitively ascribed to the vaccine, however let's treat this as a theoretical maximum.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

Therefore, if we fully vaccinated all 332M Americans and 38M Canadians, we would have approximately 13,000 deaths. Again, that number is likely an order of magnitude too high, but for the sake of argument let's call it that.

Help me understand how 13,000 is greater than 640,000 and counting. We will likely surpass 1M according to some estimates I've seen due simply to vaccine hesitancy.

You didn't specifically mention only the vaccines in your initial numbers remark. You just said "the covid debate" which includes literally millions of additional lives lost worldwide from the collateral damage from the lockdowns, including poverty, suicides, delayed medical care for other conditions, and related social compromises, including education.

On the vaccine side of the argument, what isn't being considered are the alternative treatments you may not have looked into for early onset and prevention that were derailed or called "fake news" ( when now it turns out that they weren't ), and that the the recommendations of the GBD were misrepresented and never followed. Had those two been instituted right away, the projection by experts far more qualified than you or I was far fewer deaths worldwide, and there would have been no added "waves" due to extending the duration of the pandemic by "flattening the curve".

It would have been virtually all over with by the time the vaccines hit the market. But that would have been very bad for the pharmaceutical companies who have deep political ties with those making policy. Of course that's all sheer coincidence right?

I realize you just haven't had time to dig as far below the surface as an old retired guy like me, and that most people in your position have been bombarded with social media telling you not to believe anything else because it's "fake news". But the thing is. It's not all fake news. So it's entirely understandable that even more discerning people like yourself, will either miss or dismiss the variables and alternatives that aren't obvious to you.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

They are actually looking into treatments that can deal with the disease after you get it. But the best thing is just not to get it, because then the outcome is thrown to the winds. Some will have mild symptoms, some like my former brother-in-law, Lloyd, will suffer long-term symptoms of which loss of taste and smell is the least of it. Unlike his sister, my first wife Geneva, he remains an anti-vaxxer. But he subscribes to the fake news spectrum of the political landscape (alt-right).

 

[marduk]

You didn't specifically mention only the vaccines in your initial numbers remark. You just said "the covid debate" which includes literally millions of additional lives lost worldwide from the collateral damage from the lockdowns, including poverty, suicides, delayed medical care for other conditions, and related social compromises, including education.

On the vaccine side of the argument, what isn't being considered are the alternative treatments you may not have looked into for early onset and prevention that were derailed or called "fake news" ( when now it turns out that they weren't ), and that the the recommendations of the GBD were misrepresented and never followed. Had those two been instituted right away, the projection by experts far more qualified than you or I was far fewer deaths worldwide, and there would have been no added "waves" due to extending the duration of the pandemic by "flattening the curve".

It would have been virtually all over with by the time the vaccines hit the market. But that would have been very bad for the pharmaceutical companies who have deep political ties with those making policy. Of course that's all sheer coincidence right?

I realize you just haven't had time to dig as far below the surface as an old retired guy like me, and that most people in your position have been bombarded with social media telling you not to believe anything else because it's "fake news". But the thing is. It's not all fake news. So it's entirely understandable that even more discerning people like yourself, will either miss or dismiss the variables and alternatives that aren't obvious to you.

My point is that if everyone were vaccinated, the limitations due to lockdowns, poverty, suicide, etc would no longer need to be true. If you don't want those outcomes, then you should be pro-vaccines. If you promote vaccine hesitancy, then de-facto you're ok with those outcomes. It kinda is what it is at this point.

Covid is coming back simply due to a lack of critical thinking due to being told "questioning everything is critical thinking", politics, and a conspiracy mindset.

This is heaven's gate writ large. Anti-vaxxers are being driven by politics, and it's all in service of power over people.

 

[Randall]

But that's exactly my point - leads to a potential confirmation bias in your thinking.

Seatbelts clearly save lives and are mandated across much of the industrialized world ...

The thing is, a statement like "Seatbelts clearly save lives" is highly misleading. Let's have a closer look. The actual situation is that people die in automobile wrecks both with and without seatbelts. So the argument is actually that seatbelts reduce the amount of people who die in automobile wrecks. However without the stats on the people who weren't wearing seatbelts and walked away without serious injury, the variable required to justify the comparison is missing, and therefore the assertion means nothing. It's like saying "More people like Pepsi." when the samples were all only Pepsi to begin with.

but you don't agree with them, either. And I get why; I also have a clear contrarian streak in my nature, too. If there's a side to be taken, I tend to take the underdog one with a bias towards freedom as well.

Good to hear. I believe your motivation is honorable, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I would have been written-off as an uniformed conspiracy theorist and purveyor of fake news. And you would have been written-off as either just another one of the sheeple or an authoritarian Covid Nazi sympathizer. That's what makes this discussion so interesting. It's not necessarily the argument itself, but the way it's being navigated.

 

[marduk]

The thing is, a statement like "Seatbelts clearly save lives" is highly misleading. Let's have a closer look. The actual situation is that people die in automobile wrecks both with and without seatbelts. So the argument is actually that seatbelts reduce the amount of people who die in automobile wrecks. However without the stats on the people who weren't wearing seatbelts and walked away without serious injury, the variable required to justify the comparison is missing, and therefore the assertion means nothing. It's like saying "More people like Pepsi." when the samples were all only Pepsi to begin with.

Lol, c'mon man, are you really asserting that seatbelts do not in fact save lives?

If so, I'd like to see that data set and logic. You're on the wrong side of reason here.

Good to hear. I believe your motivation is honorable, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I would have been written-off as an uniformed conspiracy theorist and purveyor of fake news. And you would have been written-off as either just another one of the sheeple or an authoritarian Covid Nazi sympathizer. That's what makes this discussion so interesting. It's not necessarily the argument itself, but the way it's being navigated.

The thing I do get testy about however is this isn't abstract. Real people are really dying here, for reasons that are mostly stupid. And that's where it goes from being an abstract dialectic to being something that people should no longer fool around with.

There's a time for everything, and the time for inspiring false debates about vaccinations is not now. Let's get people safe and then have that debate, especially given the math is quite clear here. Vaccines are safe by almost any definition of save. Covid is dangerous by almost any definition of dangerous.

So go get vaccinated and then let's debate getting the next flu shot or whatever.

 

[Randall]

My point is that if everyone were vaccinated, the limitations due to lockdowns, poverty, suicide, etc would no longer need to be true. If you don't want those outcomes, then you should be pro-vaccines. If you promote vaccine hesitancy, then de-facto you're ok with those outcomes. It kinda is what it is at this point.

Covid is coming back simply due to a lack of critical thinking due to being told "questioning everything is critical thinking", politics, and a conspiracy mindset.

This is heaven's gate writ large. Anti-vaxxers are being driven by politics, and it's all in service of power over people.

Like I said, the vaccines came along later. There weren't any at the time, and the damage done by their choices then cannot be undone now by vaccines. However there were alternative approaches, and there still are alternative approaches, but they remain suppressed and demonized.

Now that the vaccines are here, if people want them, that's their choice. But unless you're simply a blind believer, whether or not they actually save lives is still a contentious issue. It's a numbers game where the numbers aren't certain and the outcomes are correlative rather than being certain of causation. I've outlined all the weaknesses in the argument in the numerous other posts in this thread.

Generally speaking, my "best guess" ( which is all even the experts can do ) is that mass vaccination prior to a pandemic seems to be very effective. Mass vaccinations near the end, is a whole other story, but could in theory still save some lives, now and in the future, but with the potential for unforeseen problems down the road due to a lack of long-term side-effect data.

 

[marduk]

Like I said, the vaccines came along later. There weren't any at the time, and the damage done by their choices then cannot be undone now by vaccines. However there were alternative approaches, and there still are alternative approaches, but they remain suppressed and demonized.

Now that the vaccines are here, if people want them, that's their choice. But unless you're simply a blind believer, whether or not they actually save lives is still a contentious issue. It's a numbers game where the numbers aren't certain and the outcomes are correlative rather than being certain of causation. I've outlined all the weaknesses in the argument in the numerous other posts in this thread.

And that's where I will in fact get angry.

It is your choice, but it is not a contentious issue. At all. It's a totally invented contention that is killing people in service of political power.

There is zero evidence for the vaccines not being safe. If you get on an airplane, you're doing something more dangerous than getting a covid shot.

I love you man, but what you're saying simply is not the case.