Page 531 of 621 FirstFirst ... 31431481521529530531532533541581 ... LastLast
Results 5,301 to 5,310 of 6205

Thread: Covid-19

  1. #5301
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by principal View Post
    The “logic” in this article is headache inducing:

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/30/h...mpression=true

    Principal
    First sentence in this article is apropos for recent conversation:

    "Vaccination alone won't stop the rise of new variants and in fact could push the evolution of strains that evade their protection, researchers warned Friday."

    To my point that I've made a few times on this thread - we are trying to play God with this, and the virus is winning. We should've of taken Sweden's approach, because in the end, "the virus is gonna virus". I fully understand the mitigation efforts we tried in the very beginning (note: I too was concerned with this in March - hell, we washed our groceries for a couple of weeks!), however, once we realized that the virus was most dangerous to older people and those with comorbidities, we should've taken steps to protect them, and simply allowed the virus to run it's course through healthier populations (younger). I believe we would've achieved herd immunity long ago, and this would be mostly behind us by now.

    This was totally mismanaged. Prior to the pandemic the WHO had studies that clearly showed that lockdown don't work. And yet, world leaders ignored them. They need to get out of the way because they keep making the same mistakes.

  2. #5302
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    867
    Have you ever heard the expression "get a second opinion"? Well, the powers that be are making this increasingly more difficult. What are they trying to hide?

    (July 29, 2021) – The Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released the following statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media:

    “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

    https://www.americaoutloud.com/a-dar...se-is-upon-us/

    This is absolutely fundamental as to what is driving extreme skepticism on all aspects of this pandemic. The suppression of dissent on all fronts - the government, social media, big tech and various medical organizations - is driving millions of people in America (and across the world) to not believe a single word coming from government and medical officials. If we can't have open discussions and debate - if we can't see detailed data - we skeptics can only conclude that they are lying to us, are hiding things from us, and/or have some type of an agenda.

  3. #5303
    Supporting Member Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by XU_Lou View Post
    Have you ever heard the expression "get a second opinion"? Well, the powers that be are making this increasingly more difficult. What are they trying to hide?

    (July 29, 2021) – The Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released the following statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media:

    “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

    https://www.americaoutloud.com/a-dar...se-is-upon-us/

    This is absolutely fundamental as to what is driving extreme skepticism on all aspects of this pandemic. The suppression of dissent on all fronts - the government, social media, big tech and various medical organizations - is driving millions of people in America (and across the world) to not believe a single word coming from government and medical officials. If we can't have open discussions and debate - if we can't see detailed data - we skeptics can only conclude that they are lying to us, are hiding things from us, and/or have some type of an agenda.
    Most dangerous line: Consensus-driven.

  4. #5304
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun View Post
    Question: insurances have higher premiums for those that smoke. Do you think that is ok? Should those that are unvaccinated have higher premiums?
    You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what you’ve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


    Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

    Principal

  5. #5305
    Supporting Member Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by principal View Post
    You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what you’ve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


    Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

    Principal
    Just imagine this conversation in the context of Single Payer Healthcare…

  6. #5306
    Supporting Member noteggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
    Most dangerous line: Consensus-driven.
    Bingo!

  7. #5307
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Springboro OH
    Posts
    1,237
    Originally Posted by Smails
    What does being college educated have to do with anything when it comes to making personal choices?



    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    Hopefully an increased ability to discern fact from fiction.
    We agree on this Paul. Except to discern fact from fiction, one needs strong critical thinking skills. You know, the opposite of blindly following the CDC bible and the Gospel according to Fauci.
    "...treat 'em with respect, or get out of the Gym!"

  8. #5308
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Springboro OH
    Posts
    1,237
    This is just a reminder that lockdowns have proven not only to be ineffective, but counterproductive; and that face coverings do not stop COVID-19.
    "...treat 'em with respect, or get out of the Gym!"

  9. #5309
    Junior Lloyd Braun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by principal View Post
    You are arguing a general principle here, that risky behavior should result in increased insurance premiums. But the hidden premise in your argument is either that taking an experimental injection is not risky or that only some risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums. How do we determine what is risky behavior and which risky behaviors should be penalized with higher premiums and which risky behaviors should not be penalized with higher premiums? Essentially, your argument begs the question. It assumes that the riskier behavior is not taking the vaccination. But this is what is under discussion, whether there is greater risk in taking the vaccine or in not taking the vaccine. In an effort to prove that not taking the vaccine is the riskier behavior, you cannot assume that not taking the vaccine is riskier behavior, but this is what youíve done by suggesting that those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums than those that do take the vaccine. We must first determine which behavior carries the most risk and then determine who would be required to pay a higher insurance premium. Because it is absolutely impossible to know the long-term effects of the vaccine, it is presently impossible to determine who should pay higher insurance premiums.


    Using your analogy, it is the long-term effects of smoking, not the short term effects, that have resulted in increased insurance premiums for smokers. We have years and years of data telling us that the long-term effects of smoking create certain medical conditions and require greater medical expenses. In the complete absence of this data in regards to the vaccine, it is impossible to conclude whether or not those who do not take the vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. using your reasoning, risk your behavior should be penalized with higher insurance premiums, it could turn out that the vaccinated should be paying the higher premiums. We will have to wait and see.

    Principal
    Going to reply to both long messages at once as it is a lot to reply toÖ

    I am not arguing for higher premiums, I just asked a question. Why do we care about the spread of the virus? Because we donít want people to get sick and die, primarily. However another reason is the burden to healthcare and society. Itís expensive to get and treat covid. Look how much it cost to have a hospitalization due to covid. Itís a lot of cash on average. And again, regardless of spread, those vaccinated donít typically end up in the hospital or dead at the same rate as unvaccinated folks. Obviously we can use other risk factors (age, BMI, etc) but you described it as a personal choice to be vaccinated. I donít disagree but insurance companies already charge more to smokers, obese individuals, people with preexisting conditions that make them more costly. Some of those conditions are a result of personal choices. I specified smoking because it is the most associated with a choice. Nobody is a smoker their entire life, however other conditions including obesity may have been present since childhood.

    The reason I asked the question was not to suggest that should be the case but when vaccinated and unvaccinated folks are both spreading the disease, the burden of illness is still mostly with those unvaccinated, because they cost more to treat on average.

    Nearly every major healthcare system in the US already requires the flu vaccine for employees. Mandates are coming soon like it or not as full FDA approval is around the corner on the vaccines. Once the mandates start, the insurance premium increases follow.

    The real tricky part is where do people that have had the illness fall in this category? Itís less likely to be hospitalized after initial covid illness but it also still happens the second time around as well just as a breakthrough case can occur. If someone has record of a positive test in the last 12 months could they be grandfathered into the ďmostly immuneĒ group?

    I would rather not get into the whole vitamin discussionÖ same goes for herbals and supplements. Thereís not good data for them but they probably donít cause harm unless in excess. I actually had a patient with zinc toxicity about 3-4 months ago. Levels were off the charts and had all sorts of issues. Thought they were fighting off covid instead of taking the vaccine. Again, their choice but nothing is without risk.

    Lots of questions for sure. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another regarding insurance premiums. Just thought it was pertinent regarding how our choice affects others in many ways.

    And yes, in a single payer system a vaccine mandate would be even more of a cluster F. It would be the same attitude magnified.

  10. #5310
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Springboro OH
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun View Post
    Going to reply to both long messages at once as it is a lot to reply toÖ

    I am not arguing for higher premiums, I just asked a question. Why do we care about the spread of the virus? Because we donít want people to get sick and die, primarily. However another reason is the burden to healthcare and society. Itís expensive to get and treat covid. Look how much it cost to have a hospitalization due to covid. Itís a lot of cash on average. And again, regardless of spread, those vaccinated donít typically end up in the hospital or dead at the same rate as unvaccinated folks. Obviously we can use other risk factors (age, BMI, etc) but you described it as a personal choice to be vaccinated. I donít disagree but insurance companies already charge more to smokers, obese individuals, people with preexisting conditions that make them more costly. Some of those conditions are a result of personal choices. I specified smoking because it is the most associated with a choice. Nobody is a smoker their entire life, however other conditions including obesity may have been present since childhood.

    The reason I asked the question was not to suggest that should be the case but when vaccinated and unvaccinated folks are both spreading the disease, the burden of illness is still mostly with those unvaccinated, because they cost more to treat on average.

    Nearly every major healthcare system in the US already requires the flu vaccine for employees. Mandates are coming soon like it or not as full FDA approval is around the corner on the vaccines. Once the mandates start, the insurance premium increases follow.

    The real tricky part is where do people that have had the illness fall in this category? Itís less likely to be hospitalized after initial covid illness but it also still happens the second time around as well just as a breakthrough case can occur. If someone has record of a positive test in the last 12 months could they be grandfathered into the ďmostly immuneĒ group?

    I would rather not get into the whole vitamin discussionÖ same goes for herbals and supplements. Thereís not good data for them but they probably donít cause harm unless in excess. I actually had a patient with zinc toxicity about 3-4 months ago. Levels were off the charts and had all sorts of issues. Thought they were fighting off covid instead of taking the vaccine. Again, their choice but nothing is without risk.

    Lots of questions for sure. I do not have a strong opinion one way or another regarding insurance premiums. Just thought it was pertinent regarding how our choice affects others in many ways.

    And yes, in a single payer system a vaccine mandate would be even more of a cluster F. It would be the same attitude magnified.
    Iíll save you all a lot of trouble. Actuary tables. <mic drop>
    "...treat 'em with respect, or get out of the Gym!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •