CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Brisketexan 106874]

Sure.  And malicious things. Engage your brain for a second brisket, instead of just barking out rhetoric. With regard to their approach to COVID as things were breaking out, do you think that the Chinese were acting like hapless dolts, or do you think that there was smooth fucking calculation involved? Serious answers only please.    

If you call “covering your pantsed ass with a series of lies and inexplicable failure to answer easy and obvious questions” “smooth fucking calculation,” well…it’s good to know that 16 yr old brisket busted by his folks for various acts of stupidity and delinquency was a “smooth fucking calculator.”
They acted like an institution caught having fucked up, and met it with a handful of truths, a bunch of lies, and a shitload of deflection and silence. Not exactly 4-D chess.

[Anastasis 23716]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

f you call “covering your pantsed ass with a series of lies and inexplicable failure to answer easy and obvious questions” “smooth fucking calculation,” well…it’s good to know that 16 yr old brisket busted by his folks for various acts of stupidity and delinquency was a “smooth fucking calculator.”

Certainly the best analogy through which we can consider the actions of the Chinese government wrt the outbreak of the COVID pandemic is a 16 year old brisket. 

[Anastasis 23716]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Yes they purposely unleashed a deadly novel virus on their own people 🤣🤣🤣

argumentum ad absurdum. 

[wildcat09 29577]

You can’t seriously think the Chinese government intentionally released Covid on the world AND that they’re not stupid.

[Anwar Namtut 344]

Idaho doesn't want you to get a vaccine against COVID

Some R's want to make it a misdemeanor for people to administer mRNA vaccines because it was "fast tracked." 

[Don Johnson 4847]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/natural-immunity-protective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

 

Quote

 

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

Infection-acquired immunity cut the risk of hospitalization and death from a Covid reinfection by 88% for at least 10 months, the study found.

 

“This is really good news, in the sense that protection against severe disease and death after infection is really quite sustained at 10 months,” said the senior study author, Dr. Christopher Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. 

The findings may be a small silver lining to the explosive omicron outbreak of last winter. With so many people infected, many most likely still benefit from that protection against severe disease, Murray said. 

Still, experts stress that vaccination is the preferable route to immunity, given the risks of Covid, particularly in unvaccinated people. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” Murray said. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?” 

The study was the largest meta-analysis to date to look at immunity following infection. It included 65 studies from 19 countries and compared the risk of developing Covid again in people who had recovered from infections to people who hadn’t been infected through September. People who had hybrid immunity, or immunity from both infection and vaccination, were excluded. Omicron subvariants that emerged in the late fall and early winter of last year, including BQ.1 and the now-dominant XBB.1.5, weren’t included.

While protection from severe disease remained high, people could be reinfected — particularly with an omicron subvariant — consistent with evidence that protection against having symptoms wanes faster than protection against hospitalization and death.

Having Covid before the omicron variant emerged didn't do much to stop reinfection with the mutated version: Protection from reinfection in that case was 74% after one month but fell to 36% by month 10. 

Dr. Bob Wachter, the chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said he did not expect the protection acquired from infection to be as robust as the meta-analysis found.

“The protection against severe infection, both the extent and the length of it at almost a year, is really surprisingly high,” said Wachter, who was not involved with the research.

Does infection-acquired immunity outperform vaccines? 

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine, the authors wrote.

While Murray and Wachter agreed that vaccination remains the safest route, having a past Covid infection should at least be considered in policymaking decisions going forward, such as vaccination requirements, they said.  

“What Europe did with this evidence made a lot of sense, which is where evidence of past infection was seen as essentially equal to vaccination in terms of requirements to go into events or for employment,” Murray said.

At the very least, he added, officials should accept that evidence of recent infection is equivalent to vaccination. 

Notably, the immunity acquired from infection did appear to wane more slowly than the immunity from two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

However, Murray said a booster dose would return protection to a higher level. 

When should I get a Covid booster?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends waiting three months after an infection to get a booster dose. 

It may be reasonable for people with healthy immune systems to stretch that out a little bit more, to six months, as the immune response continues to develop, said Deepta Bhattacharya, a professor of immunobiology at the University of Arizona. 

“We know that the immune response continues to mature over the course of about six months, both for vaccines and for infections,” he said. “Waiting about six months gives you the best bang for your buck.”

Wachter said that while it’s not harmful to get a booster earlier, there is some flexibility with the timing for people who recently had Covid.

“If you are thinking about getting a booster, it’s a perfectly reasonable call to look at this and say I’ll wait six or eight months before getting my booster,” Wachter said. “That’s a reasonable conclusion from looking at the study.”

 

 

[Captainant 28506]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You can’t seriously think the Chinese government intentionally released Covid on the world AND that they’re not stupid.

You're arguing with a fundagelical health insurance adjuster that thinks he helps people by denying them care. Weaponized cognitive dissonance is his fucking superpower lol. He absolutely seriously thinks both those things are simultaneously true. 

[Brisketexan 106874]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Certainly the best analogy through which we can consider the actions of the Chinese government wrt the outbreak of the COVID pandemic is a 16 year old brisket. 

You say that with ironic intent.

Sadly, experience has taught me that people and institutions caught with their pants down generally don't respond much better than a scared teenager.  They may have fancier letterhead and polished spokespeople, but the response themes are often remarkably similar.

Plus, it was all Todd's idea . . . he's the one who knew where the hole in the fence of the Coors distributorship was, and anyway, those kegs were ones they had already finished with, we were just taking the dregs, and then we were gonna return 'em, I promise!

[wildcat09 29577]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sadly, experience has taught me that people and institutions caught with their pants down generally don't respond much better than a scared teenager.  They may have fancier letterhead and polished spokespeople, but the response themes are often remarkably similar.

How we responded to covid is a pretty great example of this! The President of the United States of America seriously thought that it was a very dangerous and deadly disease (per his interview with Woodward) that we could avoid having to worry about so long as his television didn't talk about it. And because the administration and Congress weren't treating it seriously, state and local officials didn't either. And because none of them did, businesses didn't either. And because of all of that, pretty much nobody was remotely prepared and the whole country refused to come to grips with the danger until Tom Hanks got sick and the NBA season got suspended.

It's actually the case that pretty much nobody is well equipped to handle anything outside of their normal routine.  The only people in America who weren't completely caught with their pants down by covid were preppers (being stopped clocks and all), some message board posters who saw China and then Italy getting really bad a little before anyone else was paying attention (you know, us), and HEB.   

[Sawbonz 28192]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

argumentum ad absurdum. 

Which is not necessarily a fallacy. Clearly here it is an appropriate response to your assertion 

 

unless you want to elaborate rather than go off on a vague Socratic tangent 

[Anastasis 23716]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Which is not necessarily a fallacy. Clearly here it is an appropriate response to your assertion 

What assertion is that, exactly? 

[Sawbonz 28192]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What assertion is that, exactly? 

Lol

[Anastasis 23716]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Lol

Precisely. 

[Sawbonz 28192]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

argumentum ad absurdum. 

I guess this was a non sequitur?

[Anastasis 23716]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I guess this was a non sequitur?

No, that was the logical fallacy exhibited by your post. 

[Sawbonz 28192]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

No, that was the logical fallacy exhibited by your post. 

What was my post responding to?

[jimmyjazz 47122]

Can we get a forum just for the Jesuits?

[Anastasis 23716]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

What was my post responding to?

Since you didn't quote what you are responding to, I am left to assume that it was response to the statement "With regard to their approach to COVID as things were breaking out, do you think that the Chinese were acting like hapless dolts, or do you think that there was smooth fucking calculation involved?"  Which you reduced to "Yes they purposely unleashed a deadly novel virus on their own people 🤣🤣🤣".  Which is a perfect example of the reduction to absurdity logical fallacy. 

[Sawbonz 28192]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Since you didn't quote what you are responding to, I am left to assume that it was response to the statement "With regard to their approach to COVID as things were breaking out, do you think that the Chinese were acting like hapless dolts, or do you think that there was smooth fucking calculation involved?"  Which you reduced to "Yes they purposely unleashed a deadly novel virus on their own people 🤣🤣🤣".  Which is a perfect example of the reduction to absurdity logical fallacy. 

Except in this case it is clearly not fallacious. 
 

 

unless you want to elaborate rather than go off on a vague Socratic tangent 

[wildcat09 29577]

Ana's wife must be a saint.

[Anastasis 23716]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Except in this case it is clearly not fallacious.

Yeah, clearly. While brisket and I may disagree on how to characterize the systematic suppression, obfuscation, and censorship deployed by the Chinese government during the COVID outbreak in wuhan, he at least pays enough attention to know that I am not talking about something as silly as “the Chinese unleashed Covid on their own people” in the context of this discussion. 

[Anastasis 23716]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ana's wife must be a saint.

Well there's that, and...

[Sawbonz 28192]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, clearly. While brisket and I may disagree on how to characterize the systematic suppression, obfuscation, and censorship deployed by the Chinese government during the COVID outbreak in wuhan, he at least pays enough attention to know that I am not talking about something as silly as “the Chinese unleashed Covid on their own people” in the context of this discussion. 

Wow, that comes very close to a good faith statement of your position

[Anastasis 23716]

A new thread for consideration.  

 

[Willfully Horn 8257]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A new thread for consideration.  

 

I’ll leave the genome sequencing to y’all multiple doctorate types, and the time line parsing to our other brainiacs, but will note the-sun.com has a “mixed” reputation for factual reporting, according to mediabiasfactcheck.

[crash_davis 23468]

I guess it's gone.

 

[Willfully Horn 8257]

What a heretical megalomaniac.

 

in other news, now there’s an attempt to exclude the vaccinated from donating blood. What could go wrong?.

 

”A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645”

Quote

Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said senior vice president of blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, Cliff Numark.

Numark said most blood banks are barely meeting the needs of patients today, and with an 80% reduction in blood supply, procedures for accident victims, pregnancy complications and more mundane blood transfusions would not be possible.

House Bill 645 would ban individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine from donating blood, making it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine to donate or accept blood from vaccinated donors. The bill would also ban people who have had a diagnosis of “Long COVID,” medically defined as “postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 due to chronic 27 SARS-CoV-2 viral infection.”

In addition to creating a severe shortage of blood in the state, opponents said there’s no way to test blood for both Long COVID or the vaccines.

However, proponents said the bill, a continuation of anti-vaccine legislation that passed last session, was about medical autonomy and the right to receive blood from donors had not been vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We hear these two words ‘safe and effective’ a million plus times. Does that make them true?” said bill sponsor Rep. Greg Kmetz, R- Miles City.

Emails exchanged during the drafting process show Kmetz included language from anti-vaccine legislation passed last session, House Bill 702, which outlawed discrimination based on vaccination status. A portion of that bill was struck down as unconstitutional in December.

Proponents included Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, vice-chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee, which heard the bill on Friday. She repeated claims made in the film “Died Suddenly” that were debunked prior to its release.  She said the vaccine caused issues with blood flow, citing her brother, a mortician.

The Food and Drug Administration said that respiratory virusesaren’t generally transmitted by blood transfusion and there have been no reported cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19.

Other proponents said that blood recipients should not have to worry about adverse effects in an emergency situation.

“I’m one of many who believe in the God given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need,” said Jo Vilhauer from Miles City. “This is a vital part of health autonomy.”

Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, which monitors antibody levels in U.S. blood supply samples, told Kaiser Health News more than 90% of current donors have either been infected with COVID or vaccinated against it.

Opponents slightly outnumbered proponents and included the Montana Nurses Association, the Montana Hospital Association, the Montana Medical Association, the the Montana Primary Care Association and others.

Chief Medical Officer for the American Red Cross in the Western U.S. Dr. Walter Kelley said this bill would “decimate” blood supply in Montana as 80% of the state has received at least one dose of the vaccine.

“This bill will put patients’ lives in jeopardy, and this bill needs to be removed,” Kelley said.

Numark, senior vice president of a blood collection nonprofit, said there’s no way to test for the components outlined in the bill, including “gene-altering proteins, nanoparticles, high-count spike proteins from long COVID-19, and other DNA chemotherapies, among other COVID-19 related restrictions.

“There’s no test to do that, so we would not be able to comply to determine whether people have received it or not,” he said.

In response to committee questioning, Numark said it would be possible to ask donors if they had received the COVID-19 vaccine as part of an intake form, but that the criminal liability attached to the bill adds complications.

Rep. Jodee Etchart, R-Billings, who requested the bill, asked sponsor Kmetz if he had considered establishing a system of two banks of blood, one vaccinated and one unvaccinated. Etchart had worked with Kmetz to bring forward legislation about COVID and the blood supply.

Kmetz said he’s spoken with constituents who said they didn’t want “vaccinated blood making a patient’s health situation even worse.”

“We are not going to consider that,” Kmetz said.

During the drafting process, Kmetz asked a bill drafter if it would be possible to allow for separating blood supplies to make the bill “less contentious.” The drafter said she could include that language but she was not familiar with the intricacies of the process and wouldn’t be able to answer if it was possible.

Etchart asked in an email when the bill was being drafted whether anyone would qualify to donate blood with the language that was in the bill at the time. She said nearly the entire population has either knowingly had COVID-19 or been vaccinated.

“The way it appears, no one will qualify, and this bill will go down so fast it isn’t even worth bringing,” Etchart said.

Pharmacist Colleen Baker with Morgan Creek Compounding Pharmacy, suggested language to better define long-haul COVID-19.

Former Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, was integral to the drafting process and characterized the need for the legislation as critical.

“An immediate effective date would fit this building emergency,” he said in a January email.

The committee did not immediately take action on the bill.

https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/27/bill-banning-vaccinated-blood-donations-would-decimate-blood-supply-opponents-say/

[Biff Tannen 46150]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

I guess it's gone.

 

obligatory

 

[nbmishoid 989]

On 2/28/2023 at 12:55 PM, Willfully Horn said:

What a heretical megalomaniac.

 

in other news, now there’s an attempt to exclude the vaccinated from donating blood. What could go wrong?.

 

”A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645”

https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/27/bill-banning-vaccinated-blood-donations-would-decimate-blood-supply-opponents-say/

How is this not attempted legislative stochastic murder?

[Captainant 28506]

33 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

How is this not attempted legislative stochastic murder?

Because the legislator can say some mealy mouthed shit like "muh religious beliefs!" and then uncritical idiots will fight their culture war, despite the false pretense of the whole thing. Is this your first day in America or something?

[Deej 77803]

On 2/28/2023 at 2:55 PM, Willfully Horn said:

What a heretical megalomaniac.

 

in other news, now there’s an attempt to exclude the vaccinated from donating blood. What could go wrong?.

 

”A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645”

https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/27/bill-banning-vaccinated-blood-donations-would-decimate-blood-supply-opponents-say/

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

On 2/28/2023 at 2:55 PM, Willfully Horn said:

What a heretical megalomaniac.

 

in other news, now there’s an attempt to exclude the vaccinated from donating blood. What could go wrong?.

 

”A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645”

https://dailymontanan.com/2023/02/27/bill-banning-vaccinated-blood-donations-would-decimate-blood-supply-opponents-say/

Woo, now I can be excluded for 2 reasons.  I've been banned from giving blood since I was 12 years old because that's when I discovered the joys of playing with other people's dicks.

[jimmyjazz 47122]

7 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Woo, now I can be excluded for 2 reasons.  I've been banned from giving blood since I was 12 years old because that's when I discovered the joys of playing with other people's dicks.

Wait, what?  Gay men can't give blood?

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:00 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  Gay men can't give blood?

Until recently, a gay man could only give blood as long as they never had sex with a man after 1982.  They recently changed it.  Now I could give blood, but I'd have to abstain from sex for 3 months first.  So yeah, gay men with a sex life still can't give blood.

[jimmyjazz 47122]

26 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Until recently, a gay man could only give blood as long as they never had sex with a man after 1982.  They recently changed it.  Now I could give blood, but I'd have to abstain from sex for 3 months first.  So yeah, gay men with a sex life still can't give blood.

Good lord, I had no idea.  That's insane.  I assume that's all predicated on an HIV test being negative + 3 months abstinence?

[Bama Chick 28596]

It’s insane because no one has ever clamored for Southerners to have their ability to donate blood restricted even though Southerners account for over 50% of new HIV infections.

[Don Johnson 4847]

 

[Anastasis 23716]

Wallensky gone. Bye. 

[Mullet Free 39]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:52 PM, Anastasis said:

Wallensky gone. Bye. 

Good riddance. 

No salutes from the fanbois and girls here? 
 

Anyway,

 

[Anastasis 23716]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:40 AM, Mullet Free said:

Good riddance. 

No salutes from the fanbois and girls here? 
 

Anyway,

 

Search this thread and a few others on this board for keywords like Covid mandate policy and you will find some real smooth brain public health policy geniuses. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Anastasis

[YGIFS 19458]

"Sensible Medicine"?  Really?  That's the publication?  I think they give that out for free with every purchase at Jo-Ann Fabrics & Hobby Lobby.  It's where I get all my vaccination advice, yarn, and "Live Laugh Love" signage

[Mileslong 4805]

[Biff Tannen 46150]

Just now, Mileslong said:

Waiting for my sister to mention this soon. 

[Anastasis 23716]

15 hours ago, YGIFS said:

"Sensible Medicine"?  Really?  That's the publication?  I think they give that out for free with every purchase at Jo-Ann Fabrics & Hobby Lobby.  It's where I get all my vaccination advice, yarn, and "Live Laugh Love" signage

Martin Adel Makary is a British-American surgeon, professor, author and medical commentator. He practices surgical oncology and gastrointestinal laparoscopic surgery at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, is Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and teaches public health policy as Professor of Surgery and Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

And he would run fucking rings around RW. It's really amazing in retrospect how absolutely insane things got with denying some immunological basics likes acquired immunity and extrapolating things like the effect of extending the vaccine 2nd dose regimen. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Anastasis

[YGIFS 19458]

Dude, I know you know your science.  I was just laughing at the name of the magazine.  It's like if Guns 'n Ammo switched to "Sensible Protection" or Hustler went to "Moderate Jerking"  

[Anastasis 23716]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

"Moderate Jerking"  

Also an appropriate description of the FDA/CDC's COVID vaccine strategy implementation. 

[babysdaddy 2731]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Search this thread and a few others on this board for keywords like Covid mandate policy and you will find some real smooth brain public health policy geniuses. 

what is the point of doing that search unless you're going to dunk on those smooth brained folks?  I'd love to reread some of the greatest hits

[Anastasis 23716]

7 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

what is the point of doing that search unless you're going to dunk on those smooth brained folks?  I'd love to reread some of the greatest hits

Some of the best were on the mandate thread, where certain posters who are really really very anti-authoritarian argued that the actual logic and science that underlay the mandates did not matter, only whether the government had the authority to issue them. 

[YGIFS 19458]

Women should have a choice then what's shot into their body?  No vaccine mandates but we as complete non-doctor males get to decide that if something gets shot up into their body, they don't have a choice what happens next?  Perfect logic.  Love it, love it.  I'm in.  Where do we meet next? 

[Incredulity 11874]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/07/19/coronavirus-origin-wuhan-lab-us-funding/
 

Joey JoJo such xenophobia.  So racist.

no wai came lab from.