Vicetrailia
Member
There have been complaints for a while. Florida is Corrupt pure and simple.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
There have been complaints for a while. Florida is Corrupt pure and simple.
juliushandle
Member
so Rogan recovered from Covid in 3 days by taking Ivermectin?
but some of you said Ivermectin was dangerous.
Israeli study shows Rogan will have 13 times the anti-bodies that a vaxxed person will have. Plus have those anti-bodies last longer compared to a vaxxed person.
but some of you said Ivermectin was dangerous.
Israeli study shows Rogan will have 13 times the anti-bodies that a vaxxed person will have. Plus have those anti-bodies last longer compared to a vaxxed person.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If he's recovered, it's most likely due to being fit, plus the antibody treatment, which is proven to work.
Self medicating with the animal version, or taking the wrong dose of the human version can be dangerous.
...so? The point is to not get COVID in the first place.
If you get COVID now in order to not get COVID in the future, you've already lost.
juliushandle
Member
I recovered from Covid and have natural immunity. I guess I'm a loser without jabs and boosters.
FullMetalx117
Member
Think of the vaccine as more of a power boost to your already great immunity. Don’t worry about being natural, 99% of what you’ve taken into your body at this point has not been natural
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Regeneron is proven to help people recover quickly if treated prior to serious symptoms, like pneumonia, forming. That's what helped Rogan the most going by what he reported his treatments were.
Ivermectin is dangerous if administered improperly, or combined with other medications without doctor supervision. This is the actual human formula, by the way. The animal-grade stuff people are taking is always dangerous for humans (obviously), and are causing all kinds of harmful side effects in people - hence why so many localities having their poison control centers flooded with Ivermectin calls and people seeking hospitalization over it.
Your final sentence is either referring to a debunked study, or one made up by Facebook grifters (you got it from Facebook, right?). The fact that you're declaring these supposed antibodies will last longer when we aren't even positive how long antibodies from any vaccine, Regeneron, or natural immunity against variant X/Y/Z last yet, should tell you that.
So this, people, was the predictable outcome of Rogan mentioning Ivermectin. If he had said HCQ instead they would have latched on that old disproven snake oil. These people won't trust decades of medicine and science, but they'll trust some guy who sells supplements and waxes philosophically at a stoned tenth grader's level. I think Rogan is hilarious and can conduct a good interview, but he's about as smart as your weed dealer from high school and shouldn't be trusted as a source of serious information in any way.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Is the goal to get COVID or is the goal to avoid getting COVID?
(or is the goal to avoid serious illness and death)
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Some misinformation in here.
Rogan is not anti-vax. He actually was going to get the vaccine before that crazy storm destroyed Texas earlier this year. He said he's cool getting it. Just isn't in a rush to get it because he's healthy.
Rogan's PSA was to announce that he had to reschedule some of his shows and did a quick rundown of why(COVID) and the treatments he got to take care of it. He listed several things. One ivermectin. Folks who got money usually go to their doctors and say "give me the cocktail of everything you can think of."
And naturally, the media uses it to try to portray Joe as a right wing ivermectin conspiracy theorist, because they are threatened by his reach and want to discredit him.
Joe: "I took monoclonal antibodies, steroid, vitamin D drip, ivermectin and I'm feeling better"
The media: "Durrr... Joe Rogan is trying to cure COVID with ivermectin!1111!111"
Rogan is not anti-vax. He actually was going to get the vaccine before that crazy storm destroyed Texas earlier this year. He said he's cool getting it. Just isn't in a rush to get it because he's healthy.
Rogan's PSA was to announce that he had to reschedule some of his shows and did a quick rundown of why(COVID) and the treatments he got to take care of it. He listed several things. One ivermectin. Folks who got money usually go to their doctors and say "give me the cocktail of everything you can think of."
And naturally, the media uses it to try to portray Joe as a right wing ivermectin conspiracy theorist, because they are threatened by his reach and want to discredit him.
Joe: "I took monoclonal antibodies, steroid, vitamin D drip, ivermectin and I'm feeling better"
The media: "Durrr... Joe Rogan is trying to cure COVID with ivermectin!1111!111"
funkygunther
Banned
I've been wrong all this time. When I hear this excuse I always assume it meant that if they got it they'd maybe take a paracetamol and let their healthy body deal with the virus.
But what it actually means is if they get it they'll be taking the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies, steroid, vitamin D drip and ivermectin.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
He said on one of his shows he had an appointment to get it for the J&J, I think it was set up by UFC I remember him mentioning and ended up not going because of a change of plans. But he said he had no problems getting it in that episode, but he also isn't in any rush because he takes care of his body.
He's not anti-vax, but I think what he and many don't understand is it isn't always about how fit you are. People can get bad immune reactions even when healthy. He thinks it's cut and dry. Strong immune system = no bad symptoms. Which isn't always accurate. But he has stated he had no qualms about taking it on the show, it just isn't urgent to him.
Last edited:
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Yep, after I was told about the various subreddits and sites tracking the hospitalizations and deaths, I was surprised at how many fitness enthusiasts and professionals I keep coming across aged 40 - 55 or so, in terrific shape, and they still either get ravaged by it coming out looking nothing like their old selves with months if not years of recovery ahead, or just die in the ICU. It helps but having a six pack and no comorbidities doesn't make one immune.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Given how long ago that was and how easy it is to get vaccinated, I doubt he's that cool with it. From a personal standpoint as a fan and a listener, I would have liked him to get the vaccine, but instead he has Bret on for an "emergency podcast" to talk about Ivermectin without anyone representing the other side. It's his show and he's not obligated to do what I want, but I was a little disappointed by that.
Again, it's his show and he can do whatever he wants, but given that even healthy people can experience a bad outcome, don't you think that's an irresponsible message to send? The most positive outcome would be for him to give people an example of why one should get vaccinated, not give people more reasons why they should put it off.
He's not "all vaccines are bad" anti-vax, he's just anti-"this current vax". There's a distinction, but practically there is not much of a difference in this context because this is the vaccine we're talking about. MMR vaccinations and the rest aren't part of this conversation, so it's kind of useless to defend him with, "but he likes the other vaccines just fine". The current ones have more than enough proof that they work and that they're safe.
Agreed.
It's so ironic how some people will tout "natural" body defenses as some sort of hallowed entity, but then supplement that with all sorts of other modern medical technology that doesn't trigger their cognitive dissonance.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
That's because some people's really bad reactions are actually immune system overreacting or going haywire. And also some just biological makeup, where for whatever reason it just hits you badly. And also depends on your viral load.
But Joe has been consistent with "I don't need to be worried, I work out everyday, I take vitamin D, and I use the sauna." He thinks those heat shock proteins and vitamin D are miracle cures. They aren't.
But he is right in that being healthy is important, it doesn't make you impervious to bad reactions though. And he's admitted as such at times. He's said he's known fit people who it's really fucked up. But in the same breath thinks it wouldn't hit him hard because of his lifestyle choices.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
I think he was asked in an episode back earlier in 2021 if he is still going to get the vaccine and he said if the UFC mandated it, he'd take it, it wouldn't be a big deal to him.
I think his official stance is he's not adamantly against it, but he's not enthused about getting it either. But I've heard nothing from him to indicate that he's one of those "I WANT THAT VACCINE NOWHERE NEAR MY BLOODSTREAM!" either. He's kind of ambivalent about it.
Anti Vaxxers are killing other people
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
I'm not a doctor of course, but my care provider friends have said they will sometimes administer antibiotics in some cases if a person already has viral pneumonia as a preventative from them developing bacterial pneumonia. Never heard of them using a z pack for that, rather other antibiotics, but I can ask them.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, that scenario makes sense, but Rogan isn't even using it for that purpose. I think he's using it based on the in vitro studies that suggested AZM might have anti-viral properties too.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, I get that, and I recognize there's a spectrum and that he's not the worst kind of anti-vaxxer.
However, don't you think his words and actions regarding this have at least been a little irresponsible? Wouldn't you agree that he definitely could have handled this a lot better?
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
The only thing I took issue with him saying was when he said if you’re young and healthy you dont need it. But he stressed that that’s just his opinion and people shouldn’t take medical advice from him. And when he said that I didn’t take him as that imploring young people not to get it. I think what he meant was that you shouldn’t be panicking if you’re 20 and healthy and don’t have it because you’ll probably be fine. Still, I disagree with the message, but I’ve heard far worse.
But I don’t think he’s been nearly as bad on this subject as has been portrayed. He’s said that people who need it should get it and while he overhypes the fitness part of it, he does admit that it is dangerous and messes people up. And he’s never been whining about masks or anything like that on his show like some people have, and has people who argue for the vaccine on his show.
I think Joe is trying his hardest to be open-minded and non-partisan and by doing that he has allowed people with conflicting viewpoints on his show and people have conflated that with him being an advocate for ivermectin and against vaccines, which I’ve gotten no indication is the case.
He really hasn’t taken a strong stance on anything COVID related other than being healthy and losing weight, and he’s been very anti lockdowns, but said he’s fine with limited capacity and masks.
Last edited:
12Goblins
Lil’ Gobbie
azithromycin has anti inflammatory properties and is known to reduce inflammation in your lungs, which is why is also why it is given to COPD'ers to prevent flare-up's
12Goblins
Lil’ Gobbie
Coronavirus vaccines cut risk of long Covid, study finds
The study adds to growing evidence that vaccination helps protect against Covid in a number of ways.
www.bbc.com
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yes, I've heard far worse too, but if that's the best defense we can muster for him, doesn't that mean he's being a little irresponsible? He's not obligated to be a role model, and he puts out the disclaimer that no one should take medical advice from him, but he knows tons of people do. There is already loads of proof that demonstrates his vaccine hesitancy is not rooted in facts. He even cited a study about vaccines and mutations, and used that to cast doubt on the mRNA vaccines, which is not at all justified by the data in that same study.
MilkyJoe
Member
In a few years we can all look back and see that if anything this brought out people's true character.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yes, I'm seeing a lot of selfishness, obstinance, and being bad at math, to name a few.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
i did say I took issue with it, but generally speaking, I don’t think he should be obligated to not talk about something even with his large audience. His show a lot of the time is just two guys just shooting the shit. People can argue that he has an obligation to his listeners, but Im more in the camp that if someone is dumb enough to take advice from a non expert, then that’s on them. If I did something or took something I heard from some dude on a radio show or podcast and it hurt me, I’d blame no one but myself for being gullible. My philosophies in life almost always lean toward people being personally responsible for their decisions.
But I don’t think he’s trying to mislead, I think he doesn’t know any better. You don’t know what you don’t know. If you don’t think you’re saying anything wrong, how can you prevent saying it?
As for the study about mutations, that was another thing the media lied about. They clipped it to make him look bad. I saw the whole episode, all he said was the possibility of mutations should be talked about because some people believe this is a thing, and this needs to be discussed to figure out if this is legitimate or not. He never stated he believes it. He even prefaced referencing it by saying it’s just one study and that he’s not implying or trying to argue anything about the vaccines.
juliushandle
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I feel similarly about the concept of personal responsibility, but what happens on our individual levels is different from what happens at a societal level. The people fucking themselves over for their personal decisions are not only killing themselves, but they're also contributing to the deaths of others by sucking up all the medical resources. Their personal responsibility, or lack thereof, is hurting other people.
See here: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/covi...fauci-edition.1608887/page-149#post-264474997
He said that it's a conversation that should be talked about and then cited that study as the justification. That was not a good thing to do because that study is actually not a justification for that conversation at all because Joe didn't understand the nuances of that study and how that it is different from our current situation with COVID.
At the very least, wouldn't you agree that it was Joe creating a misleading impression by not knowing what he's talking about?
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
By personal responsibility I mean when someone does something via information not obtained by professional sources, the outcome of that is their responsibility. I don't believe someone leading them on shoulder some of that responsibility. It could be anything. And whatever that outcome is, whether it just impacts that person or other people, the person who took that bad advice and bought into it is the one I think who should be held responsible.
Joe talks for 3 hours on his podcasts. Things come up. The only way to prevent saying something that may be bad information is to never speak of it at all. Should the guy just never speak about COVID at all? I don't think that's the way to go. I just think it's one of those things where topics are going to come up, some people are going to listen and take his word for gospel, and in some rare instances it'll lead to bad outcomes. But that's a necessary sacrifice and the nature of the beast to maintain free and open discourse. The only way to solve it is to just ban talking about a bevy of topics and that opens up a whole other can of worms.
I don't think he was purposely misleading. I think he's a guy who has a million different people whispering a bunch of things in his ear. He has people he's friends with and trusts telling him one thing and other friends he trusts telling him other things, and he'll have people say so and so data is misleading and then other friends say no, this other data is the one that's actually misleading. So he basically is trying to be as non-partisan as possible and not shut out any ideas and take everything seriously.
I think he may simply be too open-minded. I think open-mindedness is good, but there can be too much of it. If someone tells me to be open-minded about the earth being flat I'm gonna tell them to STFU. But Joe isn't wired that way. He'll listen to everything. I think it comes from a good place. If it indirectly leads to people believing something they shouldn't because he mentioned something like a misinterpreted study on his show, then that sucks, but I'm not going to blame Joe for that.
Halo is Back
Member
Even if you think the virus won't kill you, imagine the amount of money you could save from not being sent to the hospital. All you got to do is take a free, safe, and effective vaccine.
CAB_Life
Member
Recent evidence suggests that if you’ve taken anabolic steroids—and I’m almost certain that Joe has at some/ multiple points—you are not counted in the “fit from Covid” group. The detrimental effects of anabolic steroids on the pulmonary system are exacerbated by the disease.
Go_Ly_Dow
Member
Not anti-vax, as I was happy to see my parents and other vulnerable people I know get to double jabbed status, but I myself have yet to have the jab.
I am 31, in good shape, workout, good diet, take my vit d and sleep at least 7 hours a night. However I have chronic thrombocytopenia and for about 5 years now it's been identified that I have constant low blood platelets. I am very lucky as it has always hovered around the 135-149 range (150+ being normal levels), so fingers crossed it remains stable and mild. I hope my lifestyle contributes to this and I can one day achieve normal levels.
Every 2 months I have to get a blood test done to check these levels.
The vaccine has been shown to cause thrombocytopenia in healthy people as a rare side effect and there is now growing research for this. However, I haven't been able to find any research on if the vaccine causes instability in those who already have the condition.
What scares more me than COVID is having an unstable case of thrombocytopenia for life, that will require even more frequent monitoring and intervention, which includes immunosuppressants and platelet transfusions.
So, that is where I stand on getting vaxxed. The anxiety of getting jabbed and then having a reaction in my condition is too strong. I am sure I am not alone as the focus on blood clots and the vax is alarming to people with conditions like this.
I am 31, in good shape, workout, good diet, take my vit d and sleep at least 7 hours a night. However I have chronic thrombocytopenia and for about 5 years now it's been identified that I have constant low blood platelets. I am very lucky as it has always hovered around the 135-149 range (150+ being normal levels), so fingers crossed it remains stable and mild. I hope my lifestyle contributes to this and I can one day achieve normal levels.
Every 2 months I have to get a blood test done to check these levels.
The vaccine has been shown to cause thrombocytopenia in healthy people as a rare side effect and there is now growing research for this. However, I haven't been able to find any research on if the vaccine causes instability in those who already have the condition.
What scares more me than COVID is having an unstable case of thrombocytopenia for life, that will require even more frequent monitoring and intervention, which includes immunosuppressants and platelet transfusions.
So, that is where I stand on getting vaxxed. The anxiety of getting jabbed and then having a reaction in my condition is too strong. I am sure I am not alone as the focus on blood clots and the vax is alarming to people with conditions like this.
thefool
Member
New study on masking done by an economist at Yale. It involved 300,000 or so people in Bangladesh, in a poorly vaccinated area.
The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh | IPA
www.poverty-action.org
Summary of the available research on masking:
Cost benefit analysis, befitting an economist.
This is an interesting manuscript.
Couple of notes: The symptomatic seroprevalance rates are studied based on the impact of mask usage + social distancing. Surprisingly (not really...) it shows no positive impact on people under 50. On the other hand, for people over 50 the impact is substantial.
Cloth masks are useless (another surprise...) and surgical masks have positive effects (i haven't found the p values, i imagine the confidence interval is quite high).
This actually reads more like a study against masks in general population than in favor tbh.
Like I've been saying since March 2020: Give everyone over 50 a N95 mask.
Last edited:
I saw enough healthy people getting sick or die , what people forget is that COVID likely has to do with your DNA, and how severe you get it , that’s why some have no symptoms at all ..
I would get jabbed to be honest . I am pretty healthy myself , sported half my life , still do .. but I won’t take the chance.. we got jabbed .. Pfizer is your best bet imo
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Nope.
Nope.
Uhhh, no it doesn't. TBH. That goes against the literal written conclusion of the study
That's cool but we don't live in a world of infinite resources, and sometimes you gotta make do with what you got. Furthermore, availability is not the only limitation to this strategy, as you'll find lots of people who wouldn't even wear a N95 mask. We give out the most effective prophylactic (vaccines) for free, and yet a large portion of the population refuses them. Education to get people to utilize these resources is important.
thefool
Member
@
Rentahamster
I've noticed when it comes to research, you read headlines and tweets instead of reading the actual study. When you make a study, the authors set methodologies, collect data and present the results. Afterwards, they makes certain conclusions based on it. One of the most relevant aspects of peer-reviewing is looking for systematic errors on the methodology and to confirm if the conclusions are in line with the results, something this manuscript hasn't gone through (it's a working paper).
Even so, if you read the actual tweets of the author you will notice he actually confirms everything I posted and tries to contextualize why perhaps those expectations aren't met:
a) The data presented in this manuscript shows there is no positive impact of mask usage for people under 50:
It's clear there is no decrease between control groups. He confirms they did not find effect on under 50 and calls it a limitation of the study. He also implies that the usage of masks under 50 may have had impact of over 50. May is bolded because he himself uses it in the tweet which is fairly normal considering the study does not have any supportive data (nor even methodology to collect such data) to assess such claim.
b) Secondly, the data presented in this manuscript shows cloth masks also don't show substantial positive impacts:
He tweets that there was a statistical significant difference on symptomatology (maybe related with other virus, could be an interesting speculation) but there was no decrease of positives, while the difference in surgical was significant. He, again, tweets they are likely better but, once again I bolded it, because the study doesn't back up those claims.
Finally, this study isn't even assessing delta, which most likely, will only diminish the small subset of positive impacts the study presents.
Rentahamster
I've noticed when it comes to research, you read headlines and tweets instead of reading the actual study. When you make a study, the authors set methodologies, collect data and present the results. Afterwards, they makes certain conclusions based on it. One of the most relevant aspects of peer-reviewing is looking for systematic errors on the methodology and to confirm if the conclusions are in line with the results, something this manuscript hasn't gone through (it's a working paper).
Even so, if you read the actual tweets of the author you will notice he actually confirms everything I posted and tries to contextualize why perhaps those expectations aren't met:
a) The data presented in this manuscript shows there is no positive impact of mask usage for people under 50:
It's clear there is no decrease between control groups. He confirms they did not find effect on under 50 and calls it a limitation of the study. He also implies that the usage of masks under 50 may have had impact of over 50. May is bolded because he himself uses it in the tweet which is fairly normal considering the study does not have any supportive data (nor even methodology to collect such data) to assess such claim.
b) Secondly, the data presented in this manuscript shows cloth masks also don't show substantial positive impacts:
He tweets that there was a statistical significant difference on symptomatology (maybe related with other virus, could be an interesting speculation) but there was no decrease of positives, while the difference in surgical was significant. He, again, tweets they are likely better but, once again I bolded it, because the study doesn't back up those claims.
Finally, this study isn't even assessing delta, which most likely, will only diminish the small subset of positive impacts the study presents.
Last edited:
Thaedolus
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Cool story bro. Your hard hitting analysis of what I do might be meaningful if you weren't wrong in your analysis.@
I've noticed when it comes to research, you read headlines and tweets instead of reading the actual study.
Then it sure is great we have you to fact check them!
Actually he does the opposite, like I pointed out.
a) The data presented in this manuscript shows there is no positive impact of mask usage for people under 50:
It's clear there is no decrease between control groups. He confirms they did not find effect on under 50 and calls it a limitation of the study. He also implies that the usage of masks under 50 may have had impact of over 50. May is bolded because he himself uses it in the tweet which is fairly normal considering the study does not have any supportive data (nor even methodology to collect such data) to assess such claim.
You only posted the seroprevalence chart. If you look at the COVID symptoms table too, there is a positive impact.
No decrease in the chart you showed. There is a difference in the chart you didn't show (see above).
Yes he does have supportive data to assess that claim because the mask use of the under 50s happened concurrently in the same villages as the mask use of the over 50s. They are inextricably tied together for this result. Unless you do another study that specifically doesn't mask under 50s, you might find the answer to that, but that would be a really stupid study to do.
"Confirms everything you pointed out", huh?
You said:
I just showed you how that's wrong. Also, let's say you were right and there really is no measurable impact for people under 50? So what? Do you think that means people under 50 don't have to wear masks? I'm not sure what this point has to do with your overall worldview or the relevance to current masking policy.
The study shows that community masking decreases the prevalence of the virus among the community. This is what's important.
Moving on.
You also said:
No they're not. You keep conveniently leaving out the data that conflicts with your statements. I thought you read this thoroughly? And you're telling me that I'm the one who's not reading carefully?
Because there was (see above).
Yes it does, because there is evidence that suggests that it probably has a positive effect on the outcomes, and there is no evidence that it definitely has no effect.
You said that "cloth masks are useless" and implied that this statement is backed up by this study, despite the fact that the author himself told you you're wrong. If you look at the data, there is a significant 8.5% relative reduction in symptoms. There is also an imprecise, close to zero reduction in seroprevalence, and while that doesn't prove it has an effect on seroprevalence, it doesn't disprove it either (due to the uncertainty). Given the fact that by one measuring stick, it's significantly effective, and by another measuring stick, it's insignificantly zero, among the potential propositions that "it definitely has a positive effect", "it probably has a positive effect", "data unclear", "it probably has no effect", and "it definitely has no effect", the data best fits the proposition of "it probably has a positive effect".
Last edited:
thefool
Member
Rentahamster
it's not cool at all, because it's not the first or second time where you post a bunch of headlines that are contradicting with the actual claims and data of the articles.I'm going to repeat, everything I posted was data from the manuscript.
Regarding your claims:
- Symptomatology is not positive seroprevalance. This is such an obvious fact that I don't even understand why you are bringing it up. The data in the text shows that under 50 the masks have no positive effect on positive seroprevalance. If you have any other way to measure if a person is covid infected, congrats you might get a Nobel.
- There is no inextricably parameters to be studied on it, as the study doesn't define them. You could claim, under reasonable assumptions, that because the study is asessing both mask usage and social distancing that the behavior of unsmaked populations are much more prone to risk (less social distancing + more social interactions) vs masked (namely over 60, which adhere to more social distancing and less social interactions) leading to a conclusion (that i'm taking out of my ass) that social distancing is the relevant factor that explains the difference in results. I can't claim that tho because the behaviors are undefined.
- I'll give you that my cloth statement was exxagerated, cloth masks show no statistical relevant difference on positive effects on the population seroprevalance . The author, correctly, states that my assumption of it being useless is wrong because there's benefits related with symptoms (but this is a covid thread...).
- It probably has is not a scientific claim. It's a neogaf post.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Where else did I do that?
I already saw it the first time, and your analysis is wrong. Instead of repeating it to me again, please address my points that you ignored, and answer my questions.
- Why did you leave out the data and charts that show I'm right and you're not?
- Under 50s masking is correlated with better outcomes for over 50. Correlation isn't necessarily causation, which is why it's "maybe". This is what's in the data, so how can you say it's not supported?
- Let's say you were right and there really is no measurable impact for people under 50? So what? Do you think that means people under 50 don't have to wear masks? I'm not sure what this point has to do with your overall worldview or the relevance to current masking policy.
FunkMiller
Member
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I just felt something. A faint rumble. The aftershock of a million goal posts being moved all at once.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Another good video from Dr. John. This time he shows in an easy to understand way how all the scary side effects people are worried about in the vaccines are much worse if you get infected with the actual COVID virus.
Attaining "natural" immunity and hoping for the best is a risky strategy. More risky than a demonstrably safe vaccine.
Attaining "natural" immunity and hoping for the best is a risky strategy. More risky than a demonstrably safe vaccine.
FunkMiller
Member
The problem the anti-vaxxers have is that the more time goes by, the more we have real world, undoubtable evidence that the vaccines work exactly the way we've been told they would all this time. You can't fake results from millions upon millions of people. This is why some of our more sensible sounding anti-vaxxers have left the thread. They know the jig is up.
I would hope some would have the stones to put their hands up and say 'I was wrong'. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I mean we have seen some examples of what happens when faced with proof that their original viewpoints were wrong in this very thread over the last year.
It's apparently easier to stick your head in the sand than it is to admit that you're wrong.
thefool
Member
You did it already on the indian study on excess mortality and the myocarditis headlines which had an entire section where the authors discuss the study limitation concerning the myocarditis/pericarditis issues.
- I didn't, at all. You posted symptoms charts, which are irrelevant to the discussion of COVID seroprevalence.
- No, what's in the data is that in control groups where mask usage + social distancing is adhered, seroprelanvece positive impacts are shown on people over 50 and no impacts are noted on under 50. Constructing maybes from it is outside of the scope of the manuscript (and, again, irrelevant for the discussion).
- I don't know what you mean by masking policy, considering it's vastly different from country to country.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Receipts please. The Indian one is solid. There's a significant case for underreporting. How else do you explain the discrepancies between the cremations and the reported deaths? I'm not sure which myocarditis study you're referring to.
Yes you did.
You said:
The data presented in this manuscript shows there is no positive impact of mask usage for people under 50:
It's clear there is no decrease between control groups. He confirms they did not find effect on under 50 and calls it a limitation of the study.
The author himself rebuts your point with the data you left out.
"we find impacts on COVID symptoms at all ages tested"
You only focused on seroprevalence, the primary outcome, and ignored the findings about the secondary outcome. That means you are cherrypicking the data.
You said, "The data presented in this manuscript shows there is no positive impact of mask usage for people under 50". This is false because you didn't talk about the secondary outcome.
You said, "It's clear there is no decrease between control groups." There isn't in the primary outcome, but there is in the secondary outcome, a data point that you omitted to make your point look better.
You also left out this chart, which I'll post again, that shows a 8.5% relative reduction with significance, in regard to the secondary outcome, on the topic of cloth masks vs surgical.
Again, you're cherrypicking by conveniently leaving out the results from the secondary outcome. Over the course of the study, under 50s people wore masks and as part of the findings the over 50s definitely did experience a positive outcome. These two things are correlated but not causally related, so the best you can do is "maybe", which is perfectly reasonable and definitely relevant. What is irrelevant is you separating the age groups with independent analysis as if they're not all part of the same village and experiencing a CONTAGIOUS disease that affects the ENTIRE COMMUNITY at the same time.
According to you, you think this data suggests that for people under 50, masking didn't do anything. Assuming that was true, does that mean you think that you could use this study as a basis for saying that only people over 50 need to wear masks, and people under 50 don't need to wear masks?
Hari Seldon
Member
So are these boosters just the same exact shot as before, only you just get a 3rd one, or do they need to mix a special "booster" version that is keyed to the newer variants? I haven't been paying attention to any of this shit after I got my vaccine.