COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 2179

starting strength gym
Page 2179 of 2235 FirstFirst ... 117916792079212921692177217821792180218121892229 ... LastLast
Results 21,781 to 21,790 of 22347

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #21781
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    461

    Default

    • starting strength seminar august 2022
    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul
    Explain to me - or any young healthy person - how the probability I experience severe COVID-19 is greater than the probability I retransmit it (and thereby create a public health burden). Make sure your explanation accords with statements made, in early 2021, by people like you towards people like me.
    The situation is obviously different now than it was then. I'm happy to continue talking about this stuff if you like , but let's skip weird stipulations like this.
    This doesn't address my question. In early 2021, people like me were told that, even if we personally faced little risk, we should get vaccinated in order to prevent retransmission to vulnerable populations. (Neutralizing antibodies are indeed the mechanism for this.) I thought that was sensible and I complied. In hindsight, was that guidance correct? There is no "stipulation" besides correctly accounting for the facts.

    That is not my claim. There was not a way to predict how durable vaccination would be. I don't think anyone was naive enough to believe that mutation would not happen. I just didn't know how long it would take and to what extent it would evade protection.
    The debate was about the merits of specific engineering choices in comparison to natural immunity. Some high-profile scientists intimated that concentrated RBD targeting would be more durable than natural immunity, whereas other people predicted the opposite. In retrospect, who was right, and who was wrong?

  2. #21782
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    .
    That is not my claim. There was not a way to predict how durable vaccination would be. I don't think anyone was naive enough to believe that mutation would not happen. I just didn't know how long it would take and to what extent it would evade protection.
    This is a blatant lie, or you are not wanting to admit it. If researchers had taken the correct and appropriate 10 or so years to create a proper vaccine, and demonstrated a long term safety and efficacy profile using the Scientific Method, then we would have known. They did not.

    In the mean time you focus on finding and making widely available already approved medications for treatment through an off label use. This is how you're SUPPOSED to tackle this.

    Grantham will inevitably have some stupid reponse to this as well I would imagine that does it actually retort with a valid point.

  3. #21783
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    407

    Default

    1791 Management ("1791") filed a Securities Fraud and Market Manipulation Lawsuit against Black Rifle Coffee (BRCC). The action charges Black Rifle with intentional violations of securities laws and fraud, including deliberate breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.
    https://archive.ph/fAVZJ
    https://archive.ph/fDJ6o


    Awww what a shame for our Kyle hating, 2nd amendment support faking scam artists over at Black Rifle Coffee. Who knew if you were unethical in one facet of life you'd also be in others?

    I'll just assume guilt since that's how they do things there.

  4. #21784
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    This doesn't address my question. In early 2021, people like me were told that, even if we personally faced little risk, we should get vaccinated in order to prevent retransmission to vulnerable populations. (Neutralizing antibodies are indeed the mechanism for this.) I thought that was sensible and I complied. In hindsight, was that guidance correct? There is no "stipulation" besides correctly accounting for the facts.
    Ok. Now I understand what you're getting at. I think it was the correct guidance given what was known at the time. Protection from infection was much better against the original virus and a couple of the other early variants. It was not known how long it would take for mutation to get around that protection from infection. Delta had some escape. Omicron has much more. Is it the right guidance given what we know now? I don't know.

    The debate was about the merits of specific engineering choices in comparison to natural immunity. Some high-profile scientists intimated that concentrated RBD targeting would be more durable than natural immunity, whereas other people predicted the opposite. In retrospect, who was right, and who was wrong?
    I don't doubt that if we had just relied on natural immunity without vaccination, we would have ended up with a population that has fairly robust immunity. Would it be more protective than a population that was only vaccinated? Probably so. It's a high price, though, and it still would not be impervious.

    Do I think that people were intentionally misled to believe that vaccination provided better protection than previous infection? Possibly. At the very least data that supported this notion were emphasized and data that contradicted it were not emphasized.

    Does that get at what you were asking?

    Quote Originally Posted by GioFerrante View Post
    This is a blatant lie, or you are not wanting to admit it. If researchers had taken the correct and appropriate 10 or so years to create a proper vaccine, and demonstrated a long term safety and efficacy profile using the Scientific Method, then we would have known. They did not.

    In the mean time you focus on finding and making widely available already approved medications for treatment through an off label use. This is how you're SUPPOSED to tackle this.

    Grantham will inevitably have some stupid reponse to this as well I would imagine that does it actually retort with a valid point.
    It's true. We could have waited 10 years while people study this. Then we would have known a lot more. I don't agree that this is how you're SUPPOSED to tackle this though. Apologies for the stupid response.

  5. #21785
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,593

    Default

    New York City is Inflating 'Covid Hospitalizations' Over 100% to Justify Its Authoritarian Response - Becker News

    Primary source of COVID misinformation is the feds, scientists and scholars tell surgeon general | Just The News

    David Wiseman
    Writer at Synechion, Inc | David Wiseman, PhD, MRPharmS, is a former leading scientist at Johnson&Johnson and runs his own medical product R&D company, Synechion, Inc.
    Below is his written comments to the recent ACIP meeting which just authorized boosters to children aged 5-11.
    Wiseman-CDC2022-0065-ACIP051922-corrected.pdf - Google Drive

  6. #21786
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    48,795

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    I don't doubt that if we had just relied on natural immunity without vaccination, we would have ended up with a population that has fairly robust immunity. Would it be more protective than a population that was only vaccinated? Probably so. It's a high price, though, and it still would not be impervious.
    And what was the price, and who expects anything to be impervious? What we have now is a slowly-unfolding disaster, the likes of which no one has ever seen, amid a population of sheep who are especially happy to do anything they're told to do. Has it occurred to you that "a population with fairly robust immunity" was not the objective? We have thrown 2 centuries of public health experience in the trash -- why? Do you see why some of us might be suspicious?

    Do I think that people were intentionally misled to believe that vaccination provided better protection than previous infection? Possibly. At the very least data that supported this notion were emphasized and data that contradicted it were not emphasized.
    Maybe you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    We could have waited 10 years while people study this. Then we would have known a lot more. I don't agree that this is how you're SUPPOSED to tackle this though.
    I'm going to ask you to consider the possibility that "knowing a lot more" about this was not the point, and was never the point. What about the conduct of the public health officials involved in this disaster has indicated to you that logic and reason were in operation with respect to the management of a public health crisis? Quite literally everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong, and that's very hard to attribute to simple ignorance.

  7. #21787
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    It wasn't long ago Bill Gates said our next global pandemic could/would be smallpox related.
    I seriously doubt that this monkey thing is the next pandemic. They have already said it is transmitted exclusively through anal sex, and anal sex is the regime’s preferred kind of sex. What are they gonna do, declare a pandemic and advise people to only do it missionary style? I remember a bunch of leaflets from the British Isles advising everyone to do it doggy style with masks on and no kissing in order not to catch the Covid bug in 2020.

    Barry, what do you think? This monkey coof could put the PC regime into a funny jam.

  8. #21788
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    244

    Default

    Gilead or anyone else who has bothered to actually read any meta analytical research regarding ivermectin (this would obviously exclude Grantham) what's your take on this critique of the ivermectin meta analyses?

    Critiques:
    Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
    An Anti-Parasitic Drug in a New Context

    Here's one meta analysis with over 80 included studies:
    Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 82 studies

    I will admit that they don't break down their process for examining the data too well, or cover much detail on the individual studies, drugs that were administered alongside ivermectin, dosing, power analysis or other types of things you'd typically expect in a meta analysis. Still you'd be hard pressed to notice such a consistent benefit among a diverse set of studies such as this.

    My personal anecdote is that I was the only one of my friends/family that took ivermectin and the only one that didn't develop a fever when we caught covid.

  9. #21789
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,593

    Default

    ----------
    Balanced information and reliable research has become a rare commodity.

    In this article by PANDA Exco member David Bell, he distills the main issues surrounding the IHR and WHO Treaties and provides the action points where pressure can be applied to governments to encourage open debate.

    "These structures will change the balance between individual and national rights and favour the preferences of supra-national organisations not directly answerable to the people affected by their decisions."

    pandata.org/international-health-regulations-and-pandemic-treaties-what-is-the-deal/

    This forms part of PANDA's broader WHO Paradox campaign. Explore it here: pandata.org/who-paradox/

  10. #21790
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South of France
    Posts
    2,853

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by johnst_nhb View Post
    My problems with the current COVID situation are multi-factored:
    Thank you very much, I think I am going to save your post for future reference.

    IPB

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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