OT: COVID-19 thread #4

[GetBuLLish]

*scanning…. Sighing*

“Vaccines are evil.”

Yeah. Microbiologists, physicists and doctors must be evil too. We would’ve preferred life in 1329 AD I think.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by someone so flagrantly and intentionally misconstruing what I said. But this is par for the course.

[GetBuLLish]

Or go be angry at the near refusal of public health officials to advocate exercise and activity, despite obesity being one of the largest predictors of severe Covid illness.

I would like to see the media and health officials make a bigger deal out of this, but be real- getting someone to lose 75 pounds, or begin and stick with an exercise program are vastly more difficult than getting someone to come in and get a couple of injections.

True, but this pandemic started quite some time before the vaccines were released. So the failure to advocate loudly and consistently the importance of getting in better shape is unforgiveable.

So is the failure to advocate that people that are Vitamin D deficient take Vitamin D supplements. There's tons of data showing at least a correlation between Vitamin D deficiency and severe Covid. Even if there is no causative effect, we know for a fact that Vitamin D deficiency can cause a whole host of problems and that proper supplementation is completely safe.

Yet not one time have I heard a public health official talk about this. Why not?

[dougthonus]

So is the failure to advocate that people that are Vitamin D deficient take Vitamin D supplements. There's tons of data showing at least a correlation between Vitamin D deficiency and severe Covid. Even if there is no causative effect, we know for a fact that Vitamin D deficiency can cause a whole host of problems and that proper supplementation is completely safe.

Yet not one time have I heard a public health official talk about this. Why not?

I mean is that a real question?

The vaccine is 100x more helpful, free to use, requires very little friction to maintain (two visits), helps everyone vs only helping those whom are deficient, is actually scientifically proven to be helpful rather than correlation.

Why would you expect public health officials to ever recommend something that has correlation but is not proven to have causation?

[dougthonus]

True, but this pandemic started quite some time before the vaccines were released. So the failure to advocate loudly and consistently the importance of getting in better shape is unforgiveable.

I mean, many people have been pushing for that for quite some time in many ways.

[dice]

True, but this pandemic started quite some time before the vaccines were released. So the failure to advocate loudly and consistently the importance of getting in better shape is unforgiveable.

I mean, many people have been pushing for that for quite some time in many ways.

and those who do get dumped on for it. witness michelle obama

[micromonkey]

What is interested health wise is how little S. Korea and Japan were hit with deaths. (I don't believe China's numbers but they may well be lower than we think). They have much lower obesity rates--but it can't explain the gap. They did use an antiviral successfully (their "tamiflu" worked well I believe--possibly better than Mercks coming one IIRC) Japan and S. Korea has high mask usage--its just accepted there. Obviously that can't remotely bridge the gap either.

I read in Japan people were seeing immune responses suggesting they had something similar.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53188847

There are two types of antibody - IGM and IGG. How they respond can show whether someone has been exposed to the virus before, or something similar.

"In a primary (novel) viral infection the IGM response usually comes first," he tells me. "Then the IGG response appears later. But in secondary cases (previous exposure) the lymphocyte already has memory, and so only the IGG response increases rapidly."

...

"When we looked at the tests we were astonished... in all patients the IGG response came quickly, and the IGM response was later and weak. It looked like they had been previously exposed to a very similar virus."

This is old not sure the follow up--but could be similar coronaviruses circulate in those areas--previous SARS exposure would help but i think they would know if they had SARS before. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02260-9

So either some related sarbecovirus distant cousin could be a cold or something in that region (don't know how it would only be regional nowadays) or there is some other reason, combination of reasons.

[Dresden]

*scanning…. Sighing*

“Vaccines are evil.”

Yeah. Microbiologists, physicists and doctors must be evil too. We would’ve preferred life in 1329 AD I think.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by someone so flagrantly and intentionally misconstruing what I said. But this is par for the course.

I think you asked for that when you said "Frankly, I find the idea of mandating a person with natural immunity to get a Covid vaccine or otherwise destroy their livelihood to be pure evil. No exaggeration, I find that to be evil, and it makes me realize how easily humans have been manipulated into supporting evil atrocities throughout history."

Evil atrocities? Like concentration camps, the gulags, the Rwandan genocide, etc? Those kinds of atrocities? You are comparing those to asking someone to get a vaccination that has been shown to be extremely safe? C'mon.

[MrSparkle]

*scanning…. Sighing*

“Vaccines are evil.”

Yeah. Microbiologists, physicists and doctors must be evil too. We would’ve preferred life in 1329 AD I think.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by someone so flagrantly and intentionally misconstruing what I said. But this is par for the course.

I think you asked for that when you said "Frankly, I find the idea of mandating a person with natural immunity to get a Covid vaccine or otherwise destroy their livelihood to be pure evil. No exaggeration, I find that to be evil, and it makes me realize how easily humans have been manipulated into supporting evil atrocities throughout history."

Evil atrocities? Like concentration camps, the gulags, the Rwandan genocide, etc? Those kinds of atrocities? You are comparing those to asking someone to get a vaccination that has been shown to be extremely safe? C'mon.

I wonder if he re-reads his sentence and has a chuckle at the absurdity of his comment.

The problem with word salad, false dichotomies and red herrings is that once we’re down the slope where emotional theories make up most of an argument, we’re far removed from discussing vaccine data and research, as well as scientific/medical merits of said vaccine developers, testers and institutions. Somehow the world’s brightest and most accomplished humans banding together to work on suppressing a deadly contagious virus got lumped into committing evil atrocities throughout history.

Of course we can assume that all the world’s established medical and scientific institutions today are evil Dr. Mengeles. I guess that makes it easier to explain everything that’s happening; much simpler given all the unknowns. But man is it unfair to trust any doctor if that’s our assumption (besides Dr. Nick - he’s alright in my book because he’s a renegade who does things his own way).

[GetBuLLish]

I mean is that a real question?

The vaccine is 100x more helpful, free to use, requires very little friction to maintain (two visits), helps everyone vs only helping those whom are deficient, is actually scientifically proven to be helpful rather than correlation.

Why would you expect public health officials to ever recommend something that has correlation but is not proven to have causation?

You do realize that there was a whole time period during the pandemic when vaccines were not available, right? Did you completely forget about this or just pretending it didn't exist?

[GetBuLLish]

True, but this pandemic started quite some time before the vaccines were released. So the failure to advocate loudly and consistently the importance of getting in better shape is unforgiveable.

I mean, many people have been pushing for that for quite some time in many ways.

Show me when Biden, Harris, Fauci, or the current or prior CDC director publicly advocated the importance of exercising during the pandemic to reduce the risk of Covid illness. Show me one tweet from any of them on this.

[dougthonus]

I mean is that a real question?

The vaccine is 100x more helpful, free to use, requires very little friction to maintain (two visits), helps everyone vs only helping those whom are deficient, is actually scientifically proven to be helpful rather than correlation.

Why would you expect public health officials to ever recommend something that has correlation but is not proven to have causation?

You do realize that there was a whole time period during the pandemic when vaccines were not available, right? Did you completely forget about this or just pretending it didn't exist?

Is this to say you agree that health officials should recommend the vaccine and not vitamin D supplements at the present moment then? And that you are only arguing about what they should have done 10 months ago?

I read your entire post as being about vaccines as it seemed to be the content of it was why you don't feel people should take this vaccine, in which case your reply about the vaccine not being available, doesn't seem to mesh with your original point.

If you agree that it makes sense that health officials only push the vaccine in present day and maybe could have done something else earlier, sure, I agree we could have possibly done something else earlier. I'm not sure how good our research was at many varying points earlier, but clearly pushing masks was the best thing to do earlier in terms of proven causative benefit (which was done starting in march of 2020).

[dougthonus]

I mean, many people have been pushing for that for quite some time in many ways.

Show me when Biden, Harris, Fauci, or the current or prior CDC director publicly advocated the importance of exercising during the pandemic to reduce the risk of Covid illness. Show me one tweet from any of them on this.

I wasn't talking about COVID, it was brought up that this wasn't a short term fix as control of weight and fitness level isn't something you can fix immediately and maybe I was mistaken but you said it should have been pushed earlier. Health officials for decades have emphasized eating healthier and staying in shape as a something that is good for you to avoid all kinds of things like heart disease and cancer.

Being in good health in general probably adds 10-20 years to your life regardless of COVID right? I mean if people aren't doing that already, I guess maybe COVID could shock them into it, but it doesn't seem overly likely, and it certainly isn't the immediate impact that can be had relative to a vaccine or wearing a mask which can help you instantly. There have been tons of reasons to try to move the needle on fitness level in the USA prior to COVID already and we've seen that it isn't easily accomplished for a wide variety of reasons (more eating out, large portion sizes at restaurants, less healthy food at restaurants, junk food being cheaper than healthy food, move towards more sedentary jobs, addictive additives inside our foods, etc..)

Regardless, getting into good shape is something we should all do all the time. It will help you with most illnesses to be in better shape.

[GetBuLLish]

I think you asked for that when you said "Frankly, I find the idea of mandating a person with natural immunity to get a Covid vaccine or otherwise destroy their livelihood to be pure evil. No exaggeration, I find that to be evil, and it makes me realize how easily humans have been manipulated into supporting evil atrocities throughout history."

Evil atrocities? Like concentration camps, the gulags, the Rwandan genocide, etc? Those kinds of atrocities? You are comparing those to asking someone to get a vaccination that has been shown to be extremely safe? C'mon.

Again, a complete inability to actually address the argument being made and instead attacking a strawman argument never presented. Let's take a look at all the ways you intentionally misrepresented what I said with your underlined sentence.

First, it is not "asking" someone to get vaccinated that I'm talking about. It is requiring them to get vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and possibly destroying their families. Massive difference, as I'm sure you know but failed to confront.

Second, it's not just requiring "someone" to get vaccinated, it's requiring someone with prior natural immunity to get vaccinated, despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is not necessary and certainly not necessary enough to require vaccination. You unsurprisingly left this critical factor out.

Look, let's face it, if you guys were confident in the reasonableness and morality of your position, you would not intentionally distort it when advocating for it. You would be direct and truthful. If you really believed that mandating vaccination of people with natural immunity, you would have no problem saying something like this:

"Even if a nurse who worked tirelessly during this entire pandemic has prior natural immunity to Covid, she should be required to be vaccinated. And if she refuses, she should be fired. I don't care that this might destroy her livelihood and her ability to support her family. She should blame herself if that happens for not getting the shot."

You won't say that because it is disgusting, despite it being precisely the position you advocate. Instead you will deflect and obfuscate.

[dougthonus]

First, it is not "asking" someone to get vaccinated that I'm talking about. It is requiring them to get vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and possibly destroying their families. Massive difference, as I'm sure you know but failed to confront.

Second, it's not just requiring "someone" to get vaccinated, it's requiring someone with prior natural immunity to get vaccinated, despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is not necessary and certainly not necessary enough to require vaccination. You unsurprisingly left this critical factor out.

For vaccines like MMR, they give multiple boosters because it is enough to create antibodies in almost everyone, but some people do not require multiple boosters, because they have the antibodies after one shot or lesser shots. You can legally get a titer test to show you have antibodies rather than getting extra boosters, but ex-wife was a bit of an anti-vaxxer (though the kids are all fully vaccinated) so she would want them to get the titer tests instead of getting the extra shots.

In this sense, I'm with you in saying that if you do a titer test and can show that you have COVID antibodies that it should be similar to being vaccinated.

"Even if a nurse who worked tirelessly during this entire pandemic has prior natural immunity to Covid, she should be required to be vaccinated. And if she refuses, she should be fired. I don't care that this might destroy her livelihood and her ability to support her family. She should blame herself if that happens for not getting the shot."

You won't say that because it is disgusting, despite it being precisely the position you advocate. Instead you will deflect and obfuscate.

While I am with you that I think it would be okay to have natural immunity count towards vaccination, I can understand reasons why they instead force vaccination:

1: Morons would try to go get COVID to have natural immunity instead of getting the vaccine and cause more problems for hospitals.
2: It's easier to prove / administrate
3: Data on natural immunity is still pretty inconclusive in studies I've seen (with some showing better and some showing far worse)

In this situation, you are saying that someone else is destroying the nurse's livelihood, but no one else is. She's destroying her own livelihood by not complying with some completely and totally reasonable request.

If I walked into work in shorts every day and they fired me for not complying with the dress code, no one would go I can't believe we destroyed Doug's livelihood over his desire to wear shorts. No, they'd say, moron, go wear pants like you're supposed to. This is an easy and reasonable request.

Getting vaccinated is a reasonable and easy request. If someone chooses not to do it, they are destroying their own livelihood by their own unreasonable behavior.

Fundamentally, do you believe that a place of business should not be able to fire employees over non-discriminatory policies that they create? Should companies not be allowed to create rules for their employees in your opinion? Just so you know, you are required to get TONS of vaccines if you are a nurse outside of the COVID one, my daughter was in nursing school, and they have many requirements beyond the normal public.

[GetBuLLish]

Is this to say you agree that health officials should recommend the vaccine and not vitamin D supplements at the present moment then? And that you are only arguing about what they should have done 10 months ago?

Can you explain why it's not possible to recommend both? Is that not humanly possible? They can't spend 98% of their time on vaccines and the remaining 2% of their effort on something like Vitamin D? I'd like to understand what you think makes this impossible. Maybe a single tweet from the CDC on this is not too much to ask, especially when we know for certain that Vitamin D deficiency leads to health problems unrelated to Covid.

I read your entire post as being about vaccines as it seemed to be the content of it was why you don't feel people should take this vaccine, in which case your reply about the vaccine not being available, doesn't seem to mesh with your original point.

You're not understanding my point, then. My point is that health officials have repeatedly made mistakes or taken positions (or not taken positions) that have affected their credibility. Just because this specific point about Vitamin D applies more forcefully prior to the distribution of vaccines does not render it irrelevant. The same people in charge now are basically the same people that were in charge prior to the vaccine.

[dougthonus]

Can you explain why it's not possible to recommend both?

Yes, one is proven to be causatively massively beneficial and one hasn't.

They can't spend 98% of their time on vaccines and the remaining 2% of their effort on something like Vitamin D? I'd like to understand what you think makes this impossible. Maybe a single tweet from the CDC on this is not too much to ask, especially when we know for certain that Vitamin D deficiency leads to health problems unrelated to Covid.

Vitamin D isn't something you should supplement on if you aren't deficient, so you'd need some pretty specific advice, but in general this is just general health advice. If you are deficient in any vitamins, you should take care of that as a general rule towards overall being healthier.

You're not understanding my point, then. My point is that health officials have repeatedly made mistakes or taken positions (or not taken positions) that have affected their credibility. Just because this specific point about Vitamin D applies more forcefully prior to the distribution of vaccines does not render it irrelevant. The same people in charge now are basically the same people that were in charge prior to the vaccine.

I don't think there is any stance they would take that would make you happy. I mean the two most beneficial things you can do are get vaccinated and have everyone around you wear a mask. They've pushed those two things really heavily. Probably the next most important thing you can do is be in good general health (and being in good general health probably trumps wearing a mask in terms of impact but is not achievable for people whom aren't already there and likely isn't something you can persuade people on).

In general, while I wouldn't say we handled this perfectly (and I suspect, we'd disagree pretty heavily on what those mistakes were, because the most egregious of them was probably Trump being anti-mask and denying COVID would exist and saying it would blow over for a long time, which is funny to me, because if he had called them freedom masks and said you can do your normal stuff if wearing them and printed American flags on them, he could have just stolen this whole political point from the democrats and would probably be president today but that's a separate point), I think overall most of the things you're asking for are unreasonable and not the primary things that would possibly move the needle.

The point about vitamin D is that it isn't shown to be causative. Health officials aren't going to recommend something that isn't causative and certainly not going to globally recommend something that is only applicable to people that are vitamin d deficient and then have tons of people unnecessarily taking vitamin D. Maybe it will come out at some point that vitamin D is the miracle cure for preventing COVID morbidity, but that isn't known information even today, and certainly wasn't known 10 months ago.

[GetBuLLish]

While I am with you that I think it would be okay to have natural immunity count towards vaccination, I can understand reasons why they instead force vaccination:

1: Morons would try to go get COVID to have natural immunity instead of getting the vaccine and cause more problems for hospitals.
2: It's easier to prove / administrate
3: Data on natural immunity is still pretty inconclusive in studies I've seen (with some showing better and some showing far worse)

When you are forcing someone to take a shot against their will, the moral burden is on you to demonstrate why such a measure is necessary and appropriate. Pointing to conflicting data is insufficient (though most of the data I've seen points to natural immunity being superior, which makes complete sense by the way). Pointing to a hypothetical scenario that has not occurred and likely wouldn't occur is also insufficient. And "ease of administration" is also insufficient.

If I walked into work in shorts every day and they fired me for not complying with the dress code, no one would go I can't believe we destroyed Doug's livelihood over his desire to wear shorts. No, they'd say, moron, go wear pants like you're supposed to. This is an easy and reasonable request.

If getting vaccinated was as inconsequential as wearing shorts, you would be right. But as you know, the two are not remotely comparable, even if you were just trying to make a general analogy.

The vaccination has caused multiple deaths (not to mention other severe adverse effects). This is an absolute undeniable fact. Regardless of how remote the likelihood of such a result is, it is a possibility. And it is completely reasonable for people to make their own assessment that the benefit of getting a vaccine despite having prior natural immunity is outweighed by the risks of the vaccine.

Fundamentally, do you believe that a place of business should not be able to fire employees over non-discriminatory policies that they create? Should companies not be allowed to create rules for their employees in your opinion? Just so you know, you are required to get TONS of vaccines if you are a nurse outside of the COVID one, my daughter was in nursing school, and they have many requirements beyond the normal public.

I 100% don't agree that a business should be able to fire an employee for refusing to get vaccinated for Covid. The rationale presented for the Covid vaccine mandate has completely fallen apart.

In terms of the other vaccinations you're referring to, I'd have to know what specific ones you are talking about and what the rationale is for each one. I would guess my prior post differentiating from the vaccines we all get as kids applies here as well, but I'm not certain.

[dougthonus]

When you are forcing someone to take a shot against their will, the moral burden is on you to demonstrate why such a measure is necessary and appropriate.

I would argue that a company is free to set whatever reasonable policies it wants. In a pandemic, mandating a vaccination is a reasonable policy. There is no moral burden here. Companies set up all kinds of policies. I can't wear shorts to work. Shorts aren't a moral wrong.

If getting vaccinated was as inconsequential as wearing shorts, you would be right. But as you know, the two are not remotely comparable, even if you were just trying to make a general analogy.

Yes, shorts are entirely inconsequential, vaccination is a public safety issue for the workplace and is actually significantly consequential.

The vaccination has caused multiple deaths (not to mention other severe adverse effects). This is an absolute undeniable fact. Regardless of how remote the likelihood of such a result is, it is a possibility. And it is completely reasonable for people to make their own assessment that the benefit of getting a vaccine despite having prior natural immunity is outweighed by the risks of the vaccine.

The deaths by COVID (and risks of side effects) are obviously considerably worse by orders of magnitude, which is also an absolute undeniable fact. Mitigating those risks for a firm is a totally reasonable thing to do, this is especially true in health care where an individual is highly likely to be servicing patients that are especially high risk.

I 100% don't agree that a business should be able to fire an employee for refusing to get vaccinated for Covid. The rationale presented for the Covid vaccine mandate has completely fallen apart.

Do you think they should be able to create policies in general? If no, that seems pretty ridiculous, and we're at an impasse. If yes, why would requiring vaccination against the biggest contagious public health thread we've seen in any of our lifetimes be one that you'd be against? I can't think of a reason except that you misunderstand / disbelieve the risks of the vaccine vs actual COVID.

In terms of the other vaccinations you're referring to, I'd have to know what specific ones you are talking about and what the rationale is for each one. I would guess my prior post differentiating from the vaccines we all get as kids applies here as well, but I'm not certain.

She was mandated to get HEP A, HEP B, and the Flu shot, the flu shot being pretty similar in terms of vaccination to the COVID shot in not fully protecting you or creating permanent immunity. She also had to get boosters for a few of the childhood ones, but I forget which. This was just to do rotations for CNA. I'm not sure entirely all of them, but she had to go through like three visits because they wouldn't give them all at once.

[dougthonus]

GetBullish:

Not a specific reply to a point you are making, but I suspect in general, we're at different ends of the spectrum in what we believe is reasonable loss of freedom of choice in a given situation.

I know many people fight hard against anything that takes away from what they view as a freedom and other people are for mandates that they believe are generally good for society.

To name some things from the past:
1: Outlawing smoking inside
2: Seatbelt regulations
3: Drunk Driving
4: Speed limits while driving
5: HOA rules about what you can keep in your yard

I tried to pick a random set of examples of various things people fought against (or still fight againt) today. I'm okay with all of these things. My off the cuff guess is you are probably okay with most of these too as they are legacy examples (maybe the HOA one is a good one that you'd be less okay with), and I'm too narrow minded to think of more controversial current ones today outside of the vaccine because I generally don't pay attention to a lot of politics to know what people are arguing about.

I'd probably tend towards societal good is okay to limit personal freedom, but I know others are in different points on that spectrum. I mean I think we all agree on some limits to personal freedom for society (most obviously, we probably all agree you can't kill / steal from people).

Also, I get that we may fundamentally disagree on the risk/reward profile of the vaccine (which I suspect is also true) that it heavily influences the debate as well. If you generally think that risk/reward profile is poor and I think it's good, it's pretty obvious why that impacts our differing views over mandates.

[Dresden]

I think you asked for that when you said "Frankly, I find the idea of mandating a person with natural immunity to get a Covid vaccine or otherwise destroy their livelihood to be pure evil. No exaggeration, I find that to be evil, and it makes me realize how easily humans have been manipulated into supporting evil atrocities throughout history."

Evil atrocities? Like concentration camps, the gulags, the Rwandan genocide, etc? Those kinds of atrocities? You are comparing those to asking someone to get a vaccination that has been shown to be extremely safe? C'mon.

Again, a complete inability to actually address the argument being made and instead attacking a strawman argument never presented. Let's take a look at all the ways you intentionally misrepresented what I said with your underlined sentence.

First, it is not "asking" someone to get vaccinated that I'm talking about. It is requiring them to get vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and possibly destroying their families. Massive difference, as I'm sure you know but failed to confront.

Second, it's not just requiring "someone" to get vaccinated, it's requiring someone with prior natural immunity to get vaccinated, despite the overwhelming evidence showing that this is not necessary and certainly not necessary enough to require vaccination. You unsurprisingly left this critical factor out.

Look, let's face it, if you guys were confident in the reasonableness and morality of your position, you would not intentionally distort it when advocating for it. You would be direct and truthful. If you really believed that mandating vaccination of people with natural immunity, you would have no problem saying something like this:

"Even if a nurse who worked tirelessly during this entire pandemic has prior natural immunity to Covid, she should be required to be vaccinated. And if she refuses, she should be fired. I don't care that this might destroy her livelihood and her ability to support her family. She should blame herself if that happens for not getting the shot."

You won't say that because it is disgusting, despite it being precisely the position you advocate. Instead you will deflect and obfuscate.

You're just flat wrong when you say it's not necessary to get vaccinated if you have already had Covid. Studies have shown your're about 2.5 times less likely to get Covid when you get the shot, even if you have natural immunity (although to call it "natural immunity" is misleading, since people can and do get it more than once, so it hardly is conferring immunity).

As for constructing straw man arguments, you are the one that went way over the top by saying this was equivalent to the most evil atrocities of all time. That was your argument, not mine.

And yes, I know damn well that people are being forced into getting the vaccine, not just asked, or else they could lose their jobs. People are asked/forced into doing all sorts of things during times of national emergencies. All kinds of goods were rationed during wartimes. We haven't faced a pandemic of this scale for over a hundred years. 500K Americans have lost their lives already. The science has clearly proven, and I emphasize clearly, that getting the shots will significantly reduce your chances of getting seriously ill or dying. Hospital beds have been in such short supply that people have been turned away from getting medical care- that's a national emergency too. And much of it could be prevented by just getting a simple vaccine. If people can't see fit to do their part for the greater good of society, then those individuals should take a long look in the mirror. It's a shame that it has come to employers having to mandate these things, but apparently enough people have gotten so lost in the maze of misinformation circulating on the internet that this is the place we now find ourselves in.