Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Are you trying to equate “anti-vaxxers” with “mental midgets”? Really? I had hoped you were better than that.

---

Anti-vaxxer carries a social dismissal and a stereotype that isn’t true. Mental midgits is childish and as such is dismissed. Both are name calling however one is used to stereotype and discredit while the other is equivalent to dooty head.

And I’m not going to try to shame shutup you by condescendingly saying, “I thought you were better than that”. You clearly only care about name calling that helps/hurts the argument or group with whom you agree. Great way to “other” those who don’t agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

Obviously the anti-vaxxers among us can feel free to just stay out of this one. We know how you feel.

---

Curious, who do you consider to be the “anti-vaxers”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Anti-vaxxer carries a social dismissal and a stereotype that isn’t true. Mental midgits is childish and as such is dismissed. Both are name calling however one is used to stereotype and discredit while the other is equivalent to dooty head.

And I’m not going to try to shame shutup you by condescendingly saying, “I thought you were better than that”. You clearly only care about name calling that helps/hurts the argument or group with whom you agree. Great way to “other” those who don’t agree with you.

---

Wrong again. I am anti-childishness. I don’t find “anti-vaxers” to be much more than a description. Pro-Vaxer doesn’t offend me. Why should the reverse be true? Does that hurt somebody’s feelings?


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Unwillingness to hear another’s opinion, or worse yet, facts that dispute your beliefs, is a sure sign that you are insecure in the validity of your opinion.

---

There is opinion and then there is Lou. Big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Unwillingness to hear another’s opinion, or worse yet, facts that dispute your beliefs, is a sure sign that you are insecure in the validity of your opinion.

---

Every open minded person should have some degree of insecurity regarding the validity of their opinion. Do you not agree? Facts change, opinions change. Right? If you’ve decided already, you are doing it wrong, IMO. Some here seem pretty damn certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Wrong again. I am anti-childishness. I don’t find “anti-vaxers” to be much more than a description. Pro-Vaxer doesn’t offend me. Why should the reverse be true? Does that hurt somebody’s feelings?


.

---

If you’re as smart as you think you understand the differences and connotations and are just being childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Every open minded person should have some degree of insecurity regarding the validity of their opinion. Do you not agree? Facts change, opinions change. Right? If you’ve decided already, you are doing it wrong, IMO. Some here seem pretty damn certain.

---

Hmmm, kind of. Secure = willingness to present a position because you have done enough homework to believe it’s right; and comfortable enough with yourself as a person to accept that you could still be wrong.

Ill stand by only those insecure in their position feel the need to block opposing viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Anti-vaxxer carries a social dismissal and a stereotype that isn’t true. Mental midgits is childish and as such is dismissed. Both are name calling however one is used to stereotype and discredit while the other is equivalent to dooty head.

And I’m not going to try to shame shutup you by condescendingly saying, “I thought you were better than that”. You clearly only care about name calling that helps/hurts the argument or group with whom you agree. Great way to “other” those who don’t agree with you.

---

How is anti-vaxxer a stereotype? They are anti vaccinations, that’s not a stereotype, that’s what they are.

I've never blocked anyone. But...blocking a troll is not being insecure in your position.

It's just...well, blocking a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

How is anti-vaxxer a stereotype? They are anti vaccinations, that’s not a stereotype, that’s what they are.

---

Those skeptical of the vax and its effectiveness are just that. There are a lot of things people choose not to do that isn’t labeled as anti something unless people want to dismiss an argument/other views out of hand. Further, saying they are just against something implies they are ignorant and don’t want to do it because of some defect. Anti-insert policy/belief is commonly used in society for Leftist causes: Anti-science, Anti-intellectual, anti-vax, anti-abortion, anti-government, anti-etc.

Basically, it’s a pejorative to make those you disagree with appear stupid, backwards, morally inferior, etc.

Here’s an opposite view that may make sense to you. Those who want vax or mask mandates are anti-freedom, anti-American and needle pushing Fascists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

I've never blocked anyone. But...blocking a troll is not being insecure in your position.

It's just...well, blocking a troll.

---

Haha, you and another poster are the only people I’ve ever blocked and it is for this reason. I occasionally click on your posts from time to time though (like now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

I've never blocked anyone. But...blocking a troll is not being insecure in your position.

It's just...well, blocking a troll.

---

Remember. The definition of a trol is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Haha, you and another poster are the only people I’ve ever blocked and it is for this reason. I occasionally click on your posts from time to time though (like now).

---

See?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

False assumption. You are implying that ALL vaccinated can get and transmit the virus which is unlikely true. Here is why.

---

Would you mind summarizing this link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Those skeptical of the vax and its effectiveness are just that. There are a lot of things people choose not to do that isn’t labeled as anti something unless people want to dismiss an argument/other views out of hand. Further, saying they are just against something implies they are ignorant and don’t want to do it because of some defect. Anti-insert policy/belief is commonly used in society for Leftist causes: Anti-science, Anti-intellectual, anti-vax, anti-abortion, anti-government, anti-etc.

Basically, it’s a pejorative to make those you disagree with appear stupid, backwards, morally inferior, etc.

Here’s an opposite view that may make sense to you. Those who want vax or mask mandates are anti-freedom, anti-American and needle pushing Fascists.

---

Meh. That’s a lot of hyperbole and the way you perceive the world. Anti-vax by definition is being against vaccinations. I wasn’t just speaking to covid, I’m speaking to vaccinations as a whole…now if you are just speaking to being against one particular vaccination then I may agree with you. Anything beyond that is just your own shit for lack of a better word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

Meh. That’s a lot of hyperbole and the way you perceive the world. Anti-vax by definition is being against vaccinations.

---

Ok, so what do you call people who are vaccinated for other viruses but are skeptical of this one at current?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

Would you mind summarizing this link?

---

Breakthrough cases probably have a correlation with lower antibody titers. Further, having some immunity likely means more mild case and less risk of hospitalization/complications. It’s not huge robust data but it is an excellent start to show direct correlation.

Also if you’ve had covid and are wondering if you benefit from vaccination this shows you may

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Ok, so what do you call people who are vaccinated for other viruses but are skeptical of this one at current?

---

Why didn’t they question previous vaccines? Because they were children or because it was the norm. It is recommended that those 65+ get a pneumococcal vaccine. That rate is decreasing because people are starting to question every vaccine when presented with a chance to get it. There’s nothing wrong with questioning it, but there are fallouts now that wouldn’t have occurred before and there will be an increase in these types of diseases in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Ok, so what do you call people who are vaccinated for other viruses but are skeptical of this one at current?

---

Conspiracy theorists……I’m half joking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Why didn’t they question previous vaccines? Because they were children or because it was the norm. It is recommended that those 65+ get a pneumococcal vaccine. That rate is decreasing because people are starting to question every vaccine when presented with a chance to get it. There’s nothing wrong with questioning it, but there are fallouts now that wouldn’t have occurred before and there will be an increase in these types of diseases in the future.

---

Maybe a better job could be done of explaining the individual risks instead of collective benefits would help? Possibly listening to and not dismissing concerns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Maybe a better job could be done of explaining the individual risks instead of collective benefits would help? Possibly listening to and not dismissing concerns?

---

Maybe. Or maybe people will believe what they want to believe for whatever reason regardless of what data is in front of them. 99.9% of people have made up their mind at this point. My point was that this is potentially creating another segment of anti vaxxers as people are becoming more uneasy with other vaccines. Rates of vaccinations are down across the board, which can have some serious repercussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Maybe. Or maybe people will believe what they want to believe for whatever reason regardless of what data is in front of them. 99.9% of people have made up their mind at this point. My point was that this is potentially creating another segment of anti vaxxers as people are becoming more uneasy with other vaccines. Rates of vaccinations are down affords the board, which can have some serious repercussions.

---

Could be people are skeptical overall as this is the first vax I’m aware of that carries, get it or else while still not fully approved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Breakthrough cases probably have a correlation with lower antibody titers. Further, having some immunity likely means more mild case and less risk of hospitalization/complications. It’s not huge robust data but it is an excellent start to show direct correlation.

Also if you’ve had covid and are wondering if you benefit from vaccination this shows you may

---

I understand the second part of what you said - that having some immunity means a less severe case and less risk of hospitalization. That interests me less than your prior statement which said that it isn’t true that all vaccinated people can get and transmit covid. I assume the following sentence answers that question, but I have no idea what it means:

“Breakthrough cases probably have a correlation with lower antibody titers”

What does this mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

I understand the second part of what you said - that having some immunity means a less severe case and less risk of hospitalization. That interests me less than your prior statement which said that it isn’t true that all vaccinated people can get and transmit covid. I assume the following sentence answers that question, but I have no idea what it means:

“Breakthrough cases probably have a correlation with lower antibody titers”

What does this mean?

---

Titer is a term for how many antibodies you have in your bloodstream. As a virus enters the body and replicates if we do not have a lot of antibodies circulating there is a higher chance of an infection. In other diseases there is a set level determined that is considered “immune”. We don’t yet have that number for covid. However studies like that can help determine what levels offer full protection. Levels that are lower than optimal but higher than 0 are considered “equivocal”. Which is most likely where many breakthrough cases fall. There’s some protection but the frontline troops don’t have backup.

To further answer your question, there are people that are likely completely immune to covid at this point (can change as always). I suspect those that had the disease and vaccine are most likely to have the highest response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Titer is a term for how many antibodies you have in your bloodstream. As a virus enters the body and replicates if we do not have a lot of antibodies circulating there is a higher chance of an infection. In other diseases there is a set level determined that is considered “immune”. We don’t yet have that number for covid. However studies like that can help determine what levels offer full protection. Levels that are lower than optimal but higher than 0 are considered “equivocal”. Which is most likely where many breakthrough cases fall. There’s some protection but the frontline troops don’t have backup.

To further answer your question, there are people that are likely completely immune to covid at this point (can change as always). I suspect those that had the disease and vaccine are most likely to have the highest response.

---

Thank you for the explanation, it is greatly appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Ok, so what do you call people who are vaccinated for other viruses but are skeptical of this one at current?

---

Overly cautious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Why didn’t they question previous vaccines? Because they were children or because it was the norm. It is recommended that those 65+ get a pneumococcal vaccine. That rate is decreasing because people are starting to question every vaccine when presented with a chance to get it. There’s nothing wrong with questioning it, but there are fallouts now that wouldn’t have occurred before and there will be an increase in these types of diseases in the future.

---

People don't trust the government. The medical industry got in bed with the government and publicly shouted their opinions. Same thing that happened with scientist and global warming. Everyone trusted the scientist until the government got involved. If more people die because they don't want to get vaxed then blame the government not for getting involved but for grandstanding their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjf123

Overly cautious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Sure but overly describes your opinion and not them. :)

Maybe some would like them more if they branded themselves the Resistance and put their fists in the air…

I don't know who this guy is and I hope that whomever watches this video will (a) watch until the end and (b) address what he says rather than attacking him personally (should it turn out he is on the opposite end of whatever it is you believe). He is pro-vaccine but also pro-freedom to choose, he discusses the delta variant and how surging cases have collapsed in Britain, India, and the Netherlands, and he addresses the present surge in Florida, etc. I think it is worth all 11-12 minutes of your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdRZJKG7rhw

I think both sides can gain some information and perspective from this video - whether you are pro or con vaccines, whether you accept the media narrative or the alternative news narrative.

Give it a listen. I hope everyone can be this civil and considerate of opinions that oppose their own.

Principal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

I don't know who this guy is and I hope that whomever watches this video will (a) watch until the end and (b) address what he says rather than attacking him personally (should it turn out he is on the opposite end of whatever it is you believe). He is pro-vaccine but also pro-freedom to choose, he discusses the delta variant and how surging cases have collapsed in Britain, India, and the Netherlands, and he addresses the present surge in Florida, etc. I think it is worth all 11-12 minutes of your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdRZJKG7rhw

I think both sides can gain some information and perspective from this video - whether you are pro or con vaccines, whether you accept the media narrative or the alternative news narrative.

Give it a listen. I hope everyone can be this civil and considerate of opinions that oppose their own.

Principal

---

I don't know who he is either but he's very pragmatic. I agree with just about everything he says. An important implication of what he presents is that cases shouldn't matter in themselves. It's about who is getting them - for the young and the vaccinated, this is about as dangerous as a common cold.

The only area where he missed the mark is his attribution of the seasonality to human behavior - it's 100% viral behavior, just like the flu. Another example where we humans think we can control everything, but we cannot. Especially not an airborne respiratory virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

I don't know who he is either but he's very pragmatic. I agree with just about everything he says. An important implication of what he presents is that cases shouldn't matter in themselves. It's about who is getting them - for the young and the vaccinated, this is about as dangerous as a common cold.

The only area where he missed the mark is his attribution of the seasonality to human behavior - it's 100% viral behavior, just like the flu. Another example where we humans think we can control everything, but we cannot. Especially not an airborne respiratory virus.

---

Can you extrapolate on this? I tend to think both are major factors as we’ve seen human behavior directly affect transmission.

CDC Director Admits Claim That Over 99% of In-Hospital Covid Deaths Were Among Unvaccinated People Was A Lie:
https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62442

The real number per leaked CDC data was 15% in May (and the trend appeared to be rising)!

OK data from last week shows that 24% of hospitalizations are vaccinated people: https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...415559/photo/1

Quit pretending that vaccines are completely safe and will completely protect you. The real question, and this is a very simple question, why does the CDC have to lie about this?

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...48001961070595

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

Curious, who do you consider to be the “anti-vaxers”?

---

Mostly people who don't get vaccinated, and then spend a lot of time (usually on the internet) persuading others not to get vaccinated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

Why didn’t they question previous vaccines? Because they were children or because it was the norm. It is recommended that those 65+ get a pneumococcal vaccine. That rate is decreasing because people are starting to question every vaccine when presented with a chance to get it. There’s nothing wrong with questioning it, but there are fallouts now that wouldn’t have occurred before and there will be an increase in these types of diseases in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Maybe a better job could be done of explaining the individual risks instead of collective benefits would help? Possibly listening to and not dismissing concerns?

---

The problem is that there is an online ecosystem some people choose to live in that sows constant skepticism of vaccines, and perhaps more importantly, the source of any information that is pro-vacccine. It's like a religion. If you believe vaccines are bad, and you also believe that any source of information that tells you to get vaccinated is lying, you will never be persuaded to take the vaccine regardless of data available, because you aren't actually doing any factual analysis. Taken on the merit of the factual data available everyone except for possibly the under 30's with no co-morbidities should probably get the vaccine.

Also - the collective benefit is also the individual benefit. The disease goes away and you don't risk dying from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Could be people are skeptical overall as this is the first vax I’m aware of that carries, get it or else while still not fully approved?

---

So like 2 months when the vaccine has full FDA approval most of these people will be fine getting it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

I don't know who he is either but he's very pragmatic. I agree with just about everything he says. An important implication of what he presents is that cases shouldn't matter in themselves. It's about who is getting them - for the young and the vaccinated, this is about as dangerous as a common cold.

The only area where he missed the mark is his attribution of the seasonality to human behavior - it's 100% viral behavior, just like the flu. Another example where we humans think we can control everything, but we cannot. Especially not an airborne respiratory virus.

---

Sorry, my post was in response to what someone else posted and I accidentally responded here. I will repost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

Mostly people who don't get vaccinated, and then spend a lot of time (usually on the internet) persuading others not to get vaccinated.





The problem is that there is an online ecosystem some people choose to live in that sows constant skepticism of vaccines, and perhaps more importantly, the source of any information that is pro-vacccine. It's like a religion. If you believe vaccines are bad, and you also believe that any source of information that tells you to get vaccinated is lying, you will never be persuaded to take the vaccine regardless of data available, because you aren't actually doing any factual analysis. Taken on the merit of the factual data available everyone except for possibly the under 30's with no co-morbidities should probably get the vaccine.

Also - the collective benefit is also the individual benefit. The disease goes away and you don't risk dying from it.



So like 2 months when the vaccine has full FDA approval most of these people will be fine getting it?

---

Your thoughts on this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUPD0W71iMc

Lloyd: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well.

Regardless of the facts of the matter, I like what someone said in the comments - the fact that the arguments presented here are never addressed plays a large role in why so many do not trust the government and media. When they are addressed, the arguments are generally filled with ad hominem attacks, quotes repeated from news stories that couldn't be verified in the first place, and other sources that have little credibility. If honest discussion was being had we might all end up with the truth, but honest discussion is not being had. That this does not concern the vast majority of people is far more concerning to me than which position you take regarding vaccines.

Principal

This is a great example of the point I was making around people choosing to believe people who sow doubt and skepticism.

First of all - This appears to be a video from a school board meeting in rural Indiana of one individual Doctor lecturing the school board with an opinion that he states as fact. Why do you assume that what he is saying is true and accurately represented? Is it because he says he is a Doctor? Why do you believe this one Doctor over the thousands of other Doctors saying that complete opposite? There is nothing scientific about this. It's just poking holes in existing theory, which you can do all day long.

He then goes on to state that he has treated 15(?) COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin and Zinc and that they haven't had to go to the hospital as supporting fact. He states, without evidence, that the vaccine will somehow make COVID-19 worse. Based on his sample size of 15 patients.

So - on one hand you can believe the entire medical community including the CDC, and the rest of the developed world's health care communities. You can believe the data from vaccine clinical trials. But instead you choose to believe this guy who is telling you to take Zinc and a non-FDA Approved treatment for parasitic worms that is predominantly used in animals. Do you really think he has stumbled upon the 'solution' for COVID based on his 15 patients that he has treated, that somehow the whole world has missed.

The reason this 'isn't being discussed' is because they aren't credible refutations of the existing scientific evidence, and it would be impossible for the CDC and FDA to address every baseless claim that someone makes at a school board meeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This is a great example of the point I was making around people choosing to believe people who sow doubt and skepticism.

First of all - This appears to be a video from a school board meeting in rural Indiana of one individual Doctor lecturing the school board with an opinion that he states as fact. Why do you assume that what he is saying is true and accurately represented? Is it because he says he is a Doctor? Why do you believe this one Doctor over the thousands of other Doctors saying that complete opposite? There is nothing scientific about this. It's just poking holes in existing theory, which you can do all day long.

He then goes on to state that he has treated 15(?) COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin and Zinc and that they haven't had to go to the hospital as supporting fact. He states, without evidence, that the vaccine will somehow make COVID-19 worse. Based on his sample size of 15 patients.

So - on one hand you can believe the entire medical community including the CDC, and the rest of the developed world's health care communities. You can believe the data from vaccine clinical trials. But instead you choose to believe this guy who is telling you to take Zinc and a non-FDA Approved treatment for parasitic worms that is predominantly used in animals. Do you really think he has stumbled upon the 'solution' for COVID based on his 15 patients that he has treated, that somehow the whole world has missed.

The reason this 'isn't being discussed' is because they aren't credible refutations of the existing scientific evidence, and it would be impossible for the CDC and FDA to address every baseless claim that someone makes at a school board meeting.

---

BUT….he wore suspenders so he’s smarter than all the other doctors. No bow tie, so he MAY be fallible, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by principal

Your thoughts on this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUPD0W71iMc

Lloyd: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well.

Regardless of the facts of the matter, I like what someone said in the comments - the fact that the arguments presented here are never addressed plays a large role in why so many do not trust the government and media. When they are addressed, the arguments are generally filled with ad hominem attacks, quotes repeated from news stories that couldn't be verified in the first place, and other sources that have little credibility. If honest discussion was being had we might all end up with the truth, but honest discussion is not being had. That this does not concern the vast majority of people is far more concerning to me than which position you take regarding vaccines.

Principal

---

I mostly echo boozehound’s thoughts as this doctor presents a lot of misinformation in rapid fire succession. The video has been removed, but I watched it while it was up. There is some value with functional medicine vs traditional medicine in certain scenarios so I don’t want to say his opinion is not valuable because he is a functional medicine doctor. However he argues that the vaccine has somehow promoted spreading, and one piece of evidence for that is that it is spreading in summer months in spite of everyone’s vitamin D levels being higher. While there is some data to support vitamin D for covid prevention, there are a million other factors for contracting covid.

And yes, 15 patients is hardly a high enough number to have to say something works. Hospitalization rate is MAYBE 1/15 in high risk individuals so that part made me chuckle. For comparison at the local hospitals I have affiliation there have been about 400 monoclonal antibody infusions done and have had less than 10 hospitalizations in high risk individuals that received treatment in the first 7 days of symptoms. That’s a 70% reduction in hospitalizations and none of the patients died. That is why we give the monoclonal antibodies and not ivermectin.

Again, there is a role for functional medicine, it does promote healthy lifestyle which can prevent a lot of chronic conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This is a great example of the point I was making around people choosing to believe people who sow doubt and skepticism.

First of all - This appears to be a video from a school board meeting in rural Indiana of one individual Doctor lecturing the school board with an opinion that he states as fact. Why do you assume that what he is saying is true and accurately represented? Is it because he says he is a Doctor? Why do you believe this one Doctor over the thousands of other Doctors saying that complete opposite? There is nothing scientific about this. It's just poking holes in existing theory, which you can do all day long.

He then goes on to state that he has treated 15(?) COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin and Zinc and that they haven't had to go to the hospital as supporting fact. He states, without evidence, that the vaccine will somehow make COVID-19 worse. Based on his sample size of 15 patients.

So - on one hand you can believe the entire medical community including the CDC, and the rest of the developed world's health care communities. You can believe the data from vaccine clinical trials. But instead you choose to believe this guy who is telling you to take Zinc and a non-FDA Approved treatment for parasitic worms that is predominantly used in animals. Do you really think he has stumbled upon the 'solution' for COVID based on his 15 patients that he has treated, that somehow the whole world has missed.

The reason this 'isn't being discussed' is because they aren't credible refutations of the existing scientific evidence, and it would be impossible for the CDC and FDA to address every baseless claim that someone makes at a school board meeting.

---

Also to add to this, here's a good summary of the whole Ivermectin debacle: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

All those people clapping for the Doc didn’t follow the science, but they were pretty sure they were hearing what they wanted to hear. And THAT is how it too often works.