Coronavirus
- Thread starter BuckSutherland
- Start date
- Status
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
I just heard this morning on the local news, they are recommending a 4th dose for some people, and the 4th dose will boost their immune systems.
Well, until the 5th, 6th, 10th. ...................
Well, until the 5th, 6th, 10th. ...................
BuckSutherland
5 year old buck +
I was reading an article last night from the AP and how immune compromised people may need a 4th booster. The same article stated that worldwide there have been 4.9 million deaths, with 738,000 of them in the United States. A little over 4% of the world's population and over 15% of worldwide corona deaths. Call me skeptical.....
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
Well, you gotta have the 4th before you can have the 5th...and so on....
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
Gator
5 year old buck +
I think the 4th dose is the one that comprises your immune system! Wait that is either the first or second one, never mind!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
'Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave' To Be Removed From National Anthem To Encourage Compliance With Vaccine Mandates
WASHINGTON, D.C.—With the pandemic still ongoing, the White House has been on the alert for anything that might cause resistance to the vaccine mandates. And they just realized that there was a constant anti-vax sentiment right under their noses: the national anthem.The last line of “The...
babylonbee.com
I'd be willing to bet its been talked about.
The Fishman
5 year old buck +
I am not scientifically illiterate. I do try to “follow the science”. I realize that science is continually evolving as new studies are performed. I realize that COVID studies are ongoing and that COVID related science is far from settled. With that being said how do I interpret these two articles that both came out within the past week?
One, How much less likely are you to spread covid-19 if you're vaccinated?, states that “People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show. The findings refute the idea, which has become common in some circles, that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.” The basis for this article is a preprint that has not been peer reviewed.
The next article is Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home which states “Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed. Even if they have no or few symptoms, the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.” This article is based on this peer reviewed article in the Lancet. Findings from the study. “Fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
How do we follow the science with conflicting results? Do we just go with the science that supports our conformation bias? Are the results of the first study meaningless until it has been fully peer reviewed?
One, How much less likely are you to spread covid-19 if you're vaccinated?, states that “People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show. The findings refute the idea, which has become common in some circles, that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.” The basis for this article is a preprint that has not been peer reviewed.
The next article is Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home which states “Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed. Even if they have no or few symptoms, the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.” This article is based on this peer reviewed article in the Lancet. Findings from the study. “Fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
How do we follow the science with conflicting results? Do we just go with the science that supports our conformation bias? Are the results of the first study meaningless until it has been fully peer reviewed?
Bassattackr
5 year old buck +
Personally speaking, I'm over the "science". We won't really know until the dust settles years from now. Heck we're still learning about influenza strains..
- If the gov't is allowing illegals in massive numbers to enter into the country without any vaccinations, it can't be that bad.
- At worse, the survival rate is at least 99% for the entire us population so.. it can't be that bad.
What I do know is that a certain side of the federal government is using Covid to push a full scale takeover of freedom in this country and I'm not doing a d@mn thing to go along with their plan.
Carry on..
Gator
5 year old buck +
All the while attacking the working class!
The protestors of the mandate are getting larger outside of the base I work on. I’d be out there with them if it wasn’t bow season
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
Dont follow the science. Follow common sense , use your eyes, look around. Watch the people constantly shoving maaks and distancing down our throats ignore their own rules. See how no one dies of anything but covid anymore. Their is no such thing as pre existing conditions... unless you die from the vaccine. Then if you had a hang nail 2 weeks ago that was the cause.
Ignore the scientists , from both sides
They are all getting paid by someone. Ignore the media, they parrot what the dems tell them. And for gods sake, anove all, ignore the government! All of em!!
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
Both articles can be right at the same time. The first one can be right if vaccination reduces the number of cases. If 10 out of 100 people who are vaccinated actually get the disease after being exposed, and 30 out of 100 unvaccinated get the disease after being exposed... then overall vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the disease because there are less of them carrying the disease.
The second article is right too in that if anyone who is vaccinated contracts the disease and isn't sick enough to warrant being tested and quarantining, then they can easily spread the disease.
This is how the media and politians operate. They convert truths into lies of their own benefit. Stats and numbers are easily manipulated to suit a purpose.
SD51555
5 year old buck +
Exactly. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty good with numbers. I'm a firm believer in operating on what we know. Here's what I know:
I know the Orwellian crackdown on wrongspeak is stifling doctors that have enormously better save stats than government hospitals
I know I haven't seen an early treatment protocol from the CDC or the NIH.
Horse dewormer
I know fauci and the NIH have their fingerprints all over the creation of this virus with the ccp
I know the government/media/tech machine is working overtime to stifle any discussion of cheap and safe drugs that prevent hospitalization
I know the government hasn't issued any guidelines for how to be healthier
I see greasy politicians bending and breaking the rona rules
Government has never cared about public health. If they did, industry execs wouldn't also be overseeing the agencies that regulate the industries from which they came.
Most everyone on the FDA panel that just approved shots for younger children has a conflict of interests due to their dealings with the maker of the very treatment for which they're approving
I know freedom is a zero sum. I'm either free or I'm not. Government is either limited, or it isn't
Brandon
Troubles Trees
5 year old buck +
If I may quote Denzel Washington: "If you don't watch the news you are uninformed, if you watch the news you are misinformed"
Old reliable sources like the NYTimes and BBC, the AP and Al Jazera are like QDMA or any other company really (DeWalt comes to mind). They all start off reliable and honest but in the end become greedy, corrupt and self serving propaganda machines. (How many of the Trump accusations from "anonymous sources" ended up being true? We have the benefit of hindsight now)
This is my approach. I would read both those articles and then dig into the actual studies themselves that is where the facts are. The first one you posted is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, if there are a bunch of these because it is a new approach to Covid or even just new information I take it with a grain of salt and wait to see how they pan out before posting anything about them. If there are several that are now published and peer reviewed that have similar outcomes it is holds much more merit, but even peer reviewed isn't perfect anymore.
The BBC sources the Lancet which was a reputable source until they published a pre-print bunk study on Hydroxychloroquine that shut down all the ongoing HCQ studies in progress. It only took a week or 2 to get rejected by peer review, and the Lancet retracted, but the studies were interupted and never started back up (weird?). I find it odd that 2 major factories that manufacture HCQ were destroyed by "accidental fires" around roughly the same time Trump said the swear word "HCQ" and the propaganda media yelled OMG!! One in India (the 2nd largest in the world) and the other here in the US, Illinois?) weird?
Troubles Trees
5 year old buck +
I broke this up in 2 comments so it is easier to digest.
The retracted study -->> https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf It is just my opinion but this was done intentionally (not necessarily by the Lancet) because there are now many studies that show great improvements in Covid patients but like Epstein, people had already made up their minds about HCQ and refuse to look at the bigger picture.
Other than that MAJOR screw up the Lancet has been pretty reliable throughout Covid. They have been fairly pointing out other publishers peer reviewed studies (like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) using Ivermectin and it working, but again, people already have it in their heads that the FDA and Merk call it horse dewormer and it doesn't work so that is what they believe. Most don't even see it as a human medicine but simply as Horse Dewormer because the media unfairly bashed it so bad as such. When Joe Rogan used it for Covid CNN also mocked him for using Horse Dewormer even though it worked for him.
I don't mean to turn the conversation but the early studies used therapeutics like Ivermectin and HCQ when people were on their deathbeds and nothing would have helped them. The CDC's policy since day 1 of Covid hasn't changed 1) you test positive (this is when you should start treatment.. but they don't advise it) 2) go home until you feel like you can't breath and THEN seek medical help (by then it is too late and ventilators are required)
Both Ivermectin and HCQ only work at the beginning of the illness BEFORE it is too late and should be implemented as soon as someone tests positive. You can verify this by looking at the earlier studies that only treated people in late stages (because people were told to go home until they couldn't breath) and they didn't fair well at all, but early use is the obvious key now. Ivermectin has proven to be very effective as a prophylaxis (preventative). Here is a Meta-analysis (a combination of studies) of Ivermectin on PubMed if you are interested https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ that concluded back in June 21' with "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Yet.... there is no large enough studies being done to satisfy the CDC or the NIH. They (Fauci) insists on large scale double blind placebo study as the gold standard, YET the Pfizer trials for the vaccines were NOT done using said "gold standard" weird....
My God I wrote a book in 15 minutes wtf... I didn't mean to but I can't shorten it really, the whole story is just that. I could go on but unless you ask, I will refrain.
The retracted study -->> https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf It is just my opinion but this was done intentionally (not necessarily by the Lancet) because there are now many studies that show great improvements in Covid patients but like Epstein, people had already made up their minds about HCQ and refuse to look at the bigger picture.
Other than that MAJOR screw up the Lancet has been pretty reliable throughout Covid. They have been fairly pointing out other publishers peer reviewed studies (like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov) using Ivermectin and it working, but again, people already have it in their heads that the FDA and Merk call it horse dewormer and it doesn't work so that is what they believe. Most don't even see it as a human medicine but simply as Horse Dewormer because the media unfairly bashed it so bad as such. When Joe Rogan used it for Covid CNN also mocked him for using Horse Dewormer even though it worked for him.
I don't mean to turn the conversation but the early studies used therapeutics like Ivermectin and HCQ when people were on their deathbeds and nothing would have helped them. The CDC's policy since day 1 of Covid hasn't changed 1) you test positive (this is when you should start treatment.. but they don't advise it) 2) go home until you feel like you can't breath and THEN seek medical help (by then it is too late and ventilators are required)
Both Ivermectin and HCQ only work at the beginning of the illness BEFORE it is too late and should be implemented as soon as someone tests positive. You can verify this by looking at the earlier studies that only treated people in late stages (because people were told to go home until they couldn't breath) and they didn't fair well at all, but early use is the obvious key now. Ivermectin has proven to be very effective as a prophylaxis (preventative). Here is a Meta-analysis (a combination of studies) of Ivermectin on PubMed if you are interested https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ that concluded back in June 21' with "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Yet.... there is no large enough studies being done to satisfy the CDC or the NIH. They (Fauci) insists on large scale double blind placebo study as the gold standard, YET the Pfizer trials for the vaccines were NOT done using said "gold standard" weird....
My God I wrote a book in 15 minutes wtf... I didn't mean to but I can't shorten it really, the whole story is just that. I could go on but unless you ask, I will refrain.
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
I still dont understand all the people getting tested, that have no symptoms. Are people getting tested for the flu with out symptoms?
I still havent been tested, yet a good friends kid, goes in weekly to get tested, voluntarily, not because he is required by work. He also wears a mask, outside, and in his car. It just doesnt make sense to me. Yet, I am suppose to follow along, and to as I am told, and not question anything about covid.
I still havent been tested, yet a good friends kid, goes in weekly to get tested, voluntarily, not because he is required by work. He also wears a mask, outside, and in his car. It just doesnt make sense to me. Yet, I am suppose to follow along, and to as I am told, and not question anything about covid.
- Status