COVID-19 Viruses and Vaccines

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

21 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

I get it. It's all about control. I am not going down that rabbit hole. It's no wonder you guys have so much division going on. Too many believe in some outlandish conspiracy and that the government is out to get them. 

 

With that I am out. 

 

It's not an "outlandish conspiracy."  Public health policy over COVID has always been half-assed, arbitrary, and disconnected from scientific reality.

 

Part of that was inevitable: public health policy is set at the SLTT level, resulting in a patchwork of regulation and orders, which works poorly for the occasional national public health event.  But a lot of it was political - one need look no further than last summer, with BLM protests being promoted by public health officials as more important than social distancing or masking.  Or just take note of how many "mandatory vaccination" espousers now were anti-vaxxers before COVID.    

[Jrb1979]

2 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

It's not an "outlandish conspiracy."  Public health policy over COVID has always been half-assed, arbitrary, and disconnected from scientific reality.

 

Part of that was inevitable: public health policy is set at the SLTT level, resulting in a patchwork of regulation and orders, which works poorly for the occasional national public health event.  But a lot of it was political - one need look no further than last summer, with BLM protests being promoted by public health officials as more important than social distancing or masking.  Or just take note of how many "mandatory vaccination" espousers now were anti-vaxxers before COVID.    

It never needed to be political. I look at where I live, outside of Alberta, it's never been a political thing. Our provinces worked with the federal government as best they could. For the most part here they followed what the medical and science said to do. Yes they had some missteps along the way but for the most part it's been handled well. 

[IDBillzFan]

3 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

It never needed to be political. I look at where I live, outside of Alberta, it's never been a political thing. Our provinces worked with the federal government as best they could. For the most part here they followed what the medical and science said to do. Yes they had some missteps along the way but for the most part it's been handled well. 

 

The challenge you're having with this, as least from the perspective of those of us in the US, is that our government stopped following the science LONG ago.

 

Example: the science is VERY clear that masking children, especially pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, etc. is useless. Study after study has confirmed that.

 

And yet...

 

 

Ask yourself this: where is the science that says being 6-feet apart is a good plan for fighting Covid? I'm asking for the science, not the opinion,

 

When it's clear -- and I mean crystal clear -- that our federal government has stopped following the science, then you should not be surprised when people fight back. And that is when the government MAKES it political by pushing the dangeround narrative that this is "a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

[Jrb1979]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

The challenge you're having with this, as least from the perspective of those of us in the US, is that our government stopped following the science LONG ago.

 

Example: the science is VERY clear that masking children, especially pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, etc. is useless. Study after study has confirmed that.

 

And yet...

 

 

Ask yourself this: where is the science that says being 6-feet apart is a good plan for fighting Covid? I'm asking for the science, not the opinion,

 

When it's clear -- and I mean crystal clear -- that our federal government has stopped following the science, then you should not be surprised when people fight back. And that is when the government MAKES it political by pushing the dangeround narrative that this is "a pandemic of the unvaccinated."

It is a pandemic of the unvaccinated as they are the ones filling the hospitals. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Jrb1979 said:

It is a pandemic of the unvaccinated as they are the ones filling the hospitals. 

 

Are they full of the unvaccinated, OR more truthfully, are they full in a reduced capacity because of all the health care workers who have quit/lost their jobs because of the vaccine mandates?

 

There is a Chili's in CA where I used to live that can seat 150+ people. But because no one wants towork, they only had one chef, one bartender and one server, so they closed off three-quarters of the restaurant to accommodate the smaller footprint.

 

That is what is happening in the hospitals. They have plenty of space, but they don't dare fill the beds because they don't have the staff. 

 

Political response? Hospitals are filled with the unvaccinated.

 

It's just not completely true across the country. Some places? Yes. Everywhere? No.

 

But that's the political play.

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

45 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

It is a pandemic of the unvaccinated as they are the ones filling the hospitals. 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Jrb1979 said:

It is a pandemic of the unvaccinated as they are the ones filling the hospitals. 

 

No one in the US is demanding that the unvaccinated be vaccinated for their own good.  They're demanding they be vaccinated for everyone else's good.  No one here gives a shit about the unvaccinated ending up in the hospital.  They care about them making the vaccinated sick...while ignoring what that says about the efficacy of the vaccine.  Hell, people here still insist on regularly sanitizing every surface, despite the research showing months ago that the COVID-19 virus doesn't survive on surfaces for longer than minutes. 

 

These people, who cry "following the science," ceased following it more than a year ago.  People aren't following science, they're following science reporting, which has been universally terrible for decades, and increasingly politically slanted for years.

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

It is a pandemic of the unvaccinated as they are the ones filling the hospitals. 

maybe-

but they are not there for Covid

 

you must be referring to the rural hospitals with no ICU capacity (and no ICU) 

[Spartacus]

https://www.aier.org/article/the-fdas-war-against-the-truth-on-ivermectin/

The FDA’s War Against the Truth on Ivermectin

 

Merck & Co. has donated four billion doses of ivermectin to prevent river blindness and other diseases in areas of the world, such as Africa, where parasites are common. The ten doctors who are in the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance call ivermectin “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” Ivermectin is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines and ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants.

 

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, but it has shown, in cell cultures in laboratories, the ability to destroy 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. Further, ivermectin has demonstrated its potential in clinical trials for the treatment of Covid-19 and in large-scale population studies for the prevention of Covid-19.

 

Contradicting these positive results, the FDA issued a special statement warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19.”

 

Here’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.

The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug like ivermectin, long since generic, a sponsor may never show up. The reason is not that the drug is ineffective; rather, the reason is that any expenditures used to secure approval for that new use will help other generic manufacturers that haven’t invested a dime.

 

With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes

 

There are two reasons that Merck would warn against ivermectin usage, essentially throwing its own drug under the bus.

 

Once they are marketed, doctors can prescribe drugs for uses not specifically approved by the FDA. Such usage is called off-label. Using ivermectin for Covid-19 is considered off-label because that use is not specifically listed on ivermectin’s FDA-approved label.

 

While off-label prescribing is widespread and completely legal, it is illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote that use. Doctors can use drugs for off-label uses and drug companies can supply them with product. But heaven forbid that companies encourage, support, or promote off-label prescribing. The fines for doing so are outrageous. During a particularly vigorous two-year period, the Justice Department collected over $6 billion from drug companies for off-label promotion cases. Merck’s lawyers haven’t forgotten that lesson.

 

Another reason for Merck to discount ivermectin’s efficacy is a result of marketing strategy. Ivermectin is an old, cheap, off-patent drug. Merck will never make much money from ivermectin sales. Drug companies aren’t looking to spruce up last year’s winners; they want new winners with long patent lives. Not coincidentally, Merck recently released the clinical results for its new Covid-19 fighter, molnupiravir, which has shown a 50% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among high-risk, unvaccinated adults. Analysts are predicting multi-billion-dollar sales for molnupiravir.[3]

 

While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones. Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

@Jrb1979 @Deranged Rhino

 

You should both now realize that your posts aren’t visible.

 

Stop and consider proceeding without personal attacks, yes?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

3 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Are they full of the unvaccinated, OR more truthfully, are they full in a reduced capacity because of all the health care workers who have quit/lost their jobs because of the vaccine mandates?

 

There is a Chili's in CA where I used to live that can seat 150+ people. But because no one wants towork, they only had one chef, one bartender and one server, so they closed off three-quarters of the restaurant to accommodate the smaller footprint.

 

That is what is happening in the hospitals. They have plenty of space, but they don't dare fill the beds because they don't have the staff. 

 

Political response? Hospitals are filled with the unvaccinated.

 

It's just not completely true across the country. Some places? Yes. Everywhere? No.

 

But that's the political play.

 

Let's not forget that NYS has a manufactured shortage of hospital capacity, from firing unvaccinated health care workers.

 

But you'll never hear that explained.  You might hear, for example, that ECMC's ICU is occupied to 85% of capacity right now, but not that ICU capacity is measured as "staffed ICU beds," and that staffed capacity has dropped from 63 beds to 48 in the past three months.  

 

So these hospitalization numbers are easily manipulated and misrepresented.  But what really torques me is that manipulation is transparent - the data is easily available (though I had to go to the Salem Statesman-Journal, from &#%$ing Oregon, to get those ECMC numbers.  Which speaks volumes about NY's transparency about COVID.)

[Spartacus]

5 hours ago, GG1 said:

 

The final rules aren't out yet, so everyone is defaulting to the hard vaccine option.

 

Mind you, all of this is happening MONTHS after the worst of Delta rolled through and cases are declining.    If there was a rationale for mandated vaccinations, it would have been in June.

Would have at least an argument if the jab actually stopped acquisition or transmission of the delta.

[Spartacus]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

Except that our system isn’t voluntary in many (most) instances, and neither is it mostly market based.

 

Most large corporations are granted anti-trust exemption, exclusive marketshare and/or direct subsidy through federal action. (see telecoms, mobile networks/internet, farming, biotech/pharma, pro sports)
 

Many more are propped up, and insulated from failure, from time to time, with federal bailouts. (finance, banking, insurance, auto manufacturing, airlines)

 

Still others are granted shaky legal accommodation to protect assets/future earnings from lawsuits (see the recent J&J filing seeking to retroactively dissolve the legal ownership of J&J baby powder)

 

The federal government uses the leverage it has over these companies in order force compliance over the population; and the executives making the decisions are happy to comply, because they’re a part of the club of elites, are completely interwoven with the political class to the point of figurative incest, and are, themselves, above the laws.

 

It’s the same reason all the massive boxes, on-line retailers, major chains, casinos, etc were permitted to remain open during the lockdowns; while mom and pops folded, and churches were forbidden to open.

 

The line between big business and government has been blurred over the past few decades to the point of near non-existence, now with the current administration working with social media companies to create desired censorship preferences and guidelines.

 

So, tell me again how these companies are simply doing what you suggest.

You forgot the massive payoffs to come in the 3.5 trillion graft plan

[NCBillsFan]

9 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Would have at least an argument if the jab actually stopped acquisition or transmission of the delta.

 

Wrong. Every single time you post it.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8486585/

 

We first investigated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against overall infection by the delta variant. The efficacy was 59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.13; 100) for inactivated vaccines, 67.74% (95% CI: 62.26; 72.53) for viral vector vaccines, and 77.74% (95% CI: 68.22; 88.59) for mRNA-based vaccines (Figures 1A and 1D). We next evaluated the efficacy against severe infection (defined as per World Health Organization guidelines).2 The efficacy of inactivated vaccines was 70.2% (95% CI: 40.42; 100), of viral vector (non-replicating) vaccines 95% (95% CI: 78.15; 100), and of RNA-based vaccines 89.25% (95% CI: 77.78; 100; Figures 1B and 1D).

[Spartacus]

what a shock!

keep the focus on Wuhan

 

what other illegal bio-weapon activities was the US engaged in?

 

NIH admits Fauci lied about funding Wuhan gain-of-function experiments (msn.com)

 

A full two years after Wuhan hosted the 2019 Military World Games, determined by House Foreign Affairs Republicans to be one of the planet's first superspreader events of the novel coronavirus pandemic, a top official at the National Institutes of Health has conceded that contrary to the repeated assertions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH did indeed fund highly dangerous gain-of-function research on bat-borne coronaviruses in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

[Spartacus]

5 minutes ago, NCBillsFan said:

 

Wrong. Every single time you post it.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8486585/

 

We first investigated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against overall infection by the delta variant. The efficacy was 59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.13; 100) for inactivated vaccines, 67.74% (95% CI: 62.26; 72.53) for viral vector vaccines, and 77.74% (95% CI: 68.22; 88.59) for mRNA-based vaccines (Figures 1A and 1D). We next evaluated the efficacy against severe infection (defined as per World Health Organization guidelines).2 The efficacy of inactivated vaccines was 70.2% (95% CI: 40.42; 100), of viral vector (non-replicating) vaccines 95% (95% CI: 78.15; 100), and of RNA-based vaccines 89.25% (95% CI: 77.78; 100; Figures 1B and 1D).

from the cheap seats,

- those impressive numbers would be skewed due to the overwhelming number of break through cases that the CDC refuses to track

 

-if the CDC actually agreed with those numbers, there would be no justification for mandates for jabs and masks to protect the already jabbed from the unvaxxed

 

 

[NCBillsFan]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

from the cheap seats,

- those impressive numbers would be skewed due to the overwhelming number of break through cases that the CDC refuses to track

 

-if the CDC actually agreed with those numbers, there would be no justification for mandates for jabs and masks to protect the already jabbed from the unvaxxed

 

 

 

I'm sorry what does any of the above nonsense have to do with your declarative statement below that you make over and over and over again and then refuse to address beyond your ignorant zerohedge fueled talking points?

 

I presented data that does not align with your nonsense take.  Where's your data showing the vaccines have 0% efficacy against delta?  

 

11 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Would have at least an argument if the jab actually stopped acquisition or transmission of the delta.

 

[Jrb1979]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

from the cheap seats,

- those impressive numbers would be skewed due to the overwhelming number of break through cases that the CDC refuses to track

 

-if the CDC actually agreed with those numbers, there would be no justification for mandates for jabs and masks to protect the already jabbed from the unvaxxed

 

 

First of all it's a vaccine not a JAB. That's a boxing term.

 

When I got vaccinated I was told to not talk to anyone who is unvaccinated til they get their vaccine and their dna altered.  

 

 

[Ann]

4 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

First of all it's a vaccine not a JAB. That's a boxing term.

 

When I got vaccinated I was told to not talk to anyone who is unvaccinated til they get their vaccine and their dna altered.  

 

 

Hey, even I got that sarcasm! 

[Ann]

And twitter labels the NIH approved treatments as misleading.