TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 147 of 149 FirstFirst ... 4797102107112117122127132137142143144145146147148149 LastLast
Results 3,651 to 3,675 of 3704

Thread: ☣ Coronavirus ☣

  1. #3651
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Pfizer.
    That should matter greatly though - the rate of side-effects in all of the available vaccines is really low. I think fewer than 1 in 10 people reported anything outside of the needle-stick injury in the trials, which is pretty good, considering that mild flu-like symptoms are pretty standard for most vaccines due to the body's immune response (but it is stil reported as an adverse event, so the 1 in 10 includes this basic reaction).

    Even the rare blood clotting issue with the AZ vaccine is minuscule in terms of actual risk, especially when compared to the virus itself: https://twitter.com/drailyntan/statu...72393027784710

  2. #3652
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    I got Moderna twice. The first shot only gave me arm pain. The second one, I got it around noon. By 8 PM that evening I started feeling 'off', weak and feverish. Then came the migraine. I went to bed, but woke up at 5 AM, horribly nauseated, ran to the bathroom to puke, but didn't. I stayed in bed most of the day, weak, with a horrible migraine, but by 4 PM I had recovered enough to go out for groceries. The headache lingered on another couple of days though

  3. #3653
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Classic inflammatory reaction

  4. #3654
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    First Pfizer jab I got a bit of a sore arm the next day. Second dose not even that. It only hurt a little when I pressed on the spot, so, y'know, I didn't.

    Anyway, went to a restaurant for the first time since it all started. They required proof of vaccination, so I had to log into the Patient Portal website where you can see and control your medical information and had it generate a digital certificate.

    Basically, the way it works here, you must wear a mask in "uncontrolled" public indoor spaces such as shops, banks, and public transport. In "controlled" spaces you need to show evidence of vaccination, proof of recovery, or a negative test. But this only applies to people older than 18 and so I had my first class this week with some people under that age and since masks are not mandatory in "controlled" spaces, only about half the people wore them, leading to a bit of a weird situation. It's quite a big group too, so I can't space them apart as much as I would like. About the only thing I can do is open a window before class.

  5. #3655
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Here is a meta-analysis of ivermectin studies that indicate it may not be such a bad idea to incorporate into treatment protocols, especially in poorer countries that haven't made much progress on the vaccination front. It's cheap, has a relatively benign side-effect profile, and could make a real difference in mortality rates if efficacy is demonstrated.

    Don't eat horse paste, though. Actually, if that ever seemed like a good idea to you, do eat ivermectin paste. More is sure to be better. Have an ivermectin and jelly sandwich, and make one for all your like-minded friends.
    There are a couple of fairly big red flags with this meta-analysis.

    First, the authors don't disclose that all of them are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group) who, among other things, is campaigning for the use of Ivermectin in the UK: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/up...f-covid-19.pdf

    Secondly, there have not been very many high quality studies on Ivermectin yet, so a lot of these trials included have been of low or questionable quality. Among others, they included that fraudulent Elgazzar study that was talked about earlier in this thread that in all likelihood skewed the results. And the few studies we do have that are of higher quality don't seem to suggest Ivermectin has any viable use for the treatment of COVID.

  6. #3656
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Secondly, there have not been very many high quality studies on Ivermectin yet, so a lot of these trials included have been of low or questionable quality. Among others, they included that fraudulent Elgazzar study that was talked about earlier in this thread that in all likelihood skewed the results. And the few studies we do have that are of higher quality don't seem to suggest Ivermectin has any viable use for the treatment of COVID.
    Yeah, the article I linked stated that if you remove that one study from the meta-analyses, the entire effect goes away. It was a pre-print study that was subsequently retracted but somehow it's still included in the meta-analyses.

    Meta-analyses in general need to be taken with a grain of salt. One reason can be publishing bias - if a study finds no effect it might be harder to get it published in the first place. So, say before the Elgazzar study happened, some other group tested ivermectin and found nothing, they might not have even gotten those results published. So the initial study that *got published* was automatically biased towards finding an "interesting" result. Subsequent ivermection trials only got green-lit *because* of the sensationalistic Elgazzar study.

    The problem is that the Egyptian study, the Elgazzar one was Starker stated, showed a 90% efficacy rate. So if all subsequent studies find 0% efficacy rate, the averaging the Elgazzar study and 5 other studies would still "show" a 15% efficacy rate, on "average". Even doing 89 subsequent studies of the same size, then averaging them with the Elgazzar study's 90% would still "show" an average efficacy rate of 1%, which isn't great but still greater than zero.

    So the problem is that follow-up studies are meant to prove whether or not the first study actually found something real. This is why going off a "meta-analysis" that includes the first study is just wrong and goes against how science is meant to work. It's like trying to debunk a guy who said that he saw 18 aliens through his telescope one night, so you look for aliens for 17 nights, and find nothing, then some third party claims that, on average, 1 alien is seen through a telescope each night, and you don't have to take the first guy's word for what he saw on the first night - we did a "meta-analysis" of the results of 18 nights of telescope watching. So paradoxically, the 17 additional nights of telescope watching which were meant to debunk the UFO nut somehow get condensed in the data to *back up* that there are aliens visible through telescopes!

    The only reason ivermectin got any look-in at the start was because high doses of ivermectin killed covid virus in a petri dish. But by "high doses" we're talking hundreds of times higher than the highest dose you can give a human. What is the actual result of giving a human 200 ivermectin tablets at once? I don't know, but it can't be good, and that's the proven amount of ivermectin you'd need to even inconvenience the virus. Lots of things are toxic at high enough concentrations, so it's not really something worth looking at - blow torches are equally effective at killing the virus in the petri dish as ivermectin, perhaps more so. That doesn't mean blow torches are a Covid treatment we should be looking into. The whole point of a thing being medicine instead of poison is when it kills the disease quicker than it would kill you.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 17th Sep 2021 at 14:25.

  7. #3657
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    The problem is that the Egyptian study, the Elgazzar one was Starker stated, showed a 90% efficacy rate. So if all subsequent studies find 0% efficacy rate, the averaging the Elgazzar study and 5 other studies would still "show" a 15% efficacy rate, on "average".
    This is not quite right. The Elgazzar study was one of the larger studies done at this point (which is not all that hard to do, if you just copy-paste patient data and change a few numbers here and there). So if there were 5 other studies with half the amount of patients on average, it would show something like a 25% rate. That's a bit more illustrative of just how massively it skewed the results.

  8. #3658
    Member
    Registered: May 2001
    Location: Carlisle, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    First Pfizer jab I got a bit of a sore arm the next day. Second dose not even that. It only hurt a little when I pressed on the spot, so, y'know, I didn't.
    That was my experience with the Moderna vaccine, except I had no soreness at all after the second one. I was very surprised that I didn't develop side effects because I have an autoimmune disease (psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis) for which I have been taking Humira and methotrexate for 8 years and, as suggested by my rheumatologist, I discontinued around my April and May Moderna shots. So, my immune system was returning to its normal overactive state, which resulted ins some skin and joint symptoms of my P and PsA returning after about 9 weeks. I am eligible for a third shot due to the meds I normally take, and have it scheduled for Oct. 1, so I will be off those meds again for another 3+ weeks before and after. Fingers crossed on no side effects this time. I'm fitting in the flu shot 10 days before, and planning to add the shingles vaccine Shingrix (I'm now 50 - yay) two weeks after, which would extend my immunosuppressant layoff a little. If I can make it through all of that without side effects it will amaze me.

  9. #3659
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Apparently a lot of the anti-vaxx people who don't want Covid vaccinated people in their businesses etc, are basing that on a concept called "viral shedding".

    Viral shedding is totally a real thing, but it's for different vaccines which are based on giving you a very weak form of the target disease. So for example, a viral vaccine for measles is a shell of a virus that has the same coating proteins as measles, but doesn't have the full measles payload. So you get that vaccine and your body gets a - very mild - viral infection which causes you to create antibodies and kill the new virus. So since your body is producing small amounts of this 'toy measles' virus then those can spread to people around you. But the main effect is that it vaccinates them too, rather than making them sick.

    However, this is completely not a thing with the Covid vaccines, which use the mRNA vector instead of a live virus vector. So since there is never a virus, they can't do "viral shedding", so it's not a concern. Even if it was, there is a theoretical chance that viral shedding could in fact save a lot of lives, for example you make a super-weak form of Covid, basically just a harmless virus but you put the same spike protein from Covid on there, and let that spread. It would in fact create herd immunity really quickly, but of course it always carries some risk of getting out of hand, like spreading cane toads.

  10. #3660
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I've encountered someone pushing the viral shedding thing before.
    I spent a good few exchanges trying to convince them that a protein and a virus are different things, gave up not long after.
    Can't reason with someone who is confident in their ignorance.

  11. #3661
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Can't reason with someone who is confident in their ignorance.
    Today that's literally everyone, thanks to the inner work (in the mind) of the web and Internet. It really exists to make ignorants high-confident and let them feel "indipendent".
    Last edited by lowenz; 20th Sep 2021 at 06:25.

  12. #3662
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    This stuff is getting sad
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/21/u...ath/index.html

    Natalie Rise was a registered nurse in Idaho who loved her job as a home health care worker before she decided to stay at home with her special-needs twins, according to her brother, Daryl Rise. But her science-based training to become an RN was apparently no match for the disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines being shared across social media, according to her brother.

    Rise refused to be vaccinated, even as the virus surged in her city, Coeur d'Alene. And even as her mother lay in a coma in a hospital bed, fighting for life against Covid, Natalie advised her family against being vaccinated.

    "She was telling me not to get vaccinated," Daryl Rise told CNN. "I think it was from misinformation, I think it was falling into negative social media and bloggers, YouTubers."
    ...
    As for the Rise family, Natalie's death has upended the family. Daryl has given up his job as a truck driver to help care for the 10-year-old twins his sister left behind, he said.

    His and Natalie's mother, who is still recovering from Covid-19, remains on the fence about being vaccinated, he said.

    But Daryl got his first shot the day after his sister died.

    "It was the hardest decision of my life, you know, am I doing right by God? Am I doing right by Natalie?" he said. "And I got it out of fear."
    The report also details how idaho has no mask mandates and one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country, unlike nearby Washington state, and now Washington hospitals are filling up with patient overflow from Idaho.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 21st Sep 2021 at 15:52.

  13. #3663
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    The real HARD question is this: we need this kind of people? People that in front of death refuse salvation because of their "believes".....are they freedom martyrs or dumb simpletons?

  14. #3664
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    The real HARD question is this: we need this kind of people? People that in front of death refuse salvation because of their "believes".....are they freedom martyrs or dumb simpletons?
    That's too harsh a perspective. By that logic you could just shoot the homeless as being equally unneeded. So you could ask to what ends we need any people then only keep the "needed" people, rather than try and make a system where people who feel they aren't needed have a voice.

    Right wing populists feed on people who feel marginalized, but misdirect that anger. But we also get people on the left who have misplaced anger too. Those are usually exemplified by the phrase "when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". The way to spot those people is that they're the ones who claim that a specific "ism" is behind all of life's and society's problems.

    One example is advocates who blame "the patriarchy" for all domestic abuse, and they actually argue for defunding alcohol and drug dependency reduction programs in favor of putting the abusers through anti-patriarchy indoctrination programs that even their creators now disavow (read about the Duluth Program). So basically you have a subset of advocates who are trying to steer funding into their almost religious belief in one factor, and hurting funding for actual evidence-based programs because they believe that highlighting how alcohol and drug abuse are major factors in real domestic abuse is "letting the patriarchy off the hook". This is basically the anti-Vaxxers of social services.
    https://www.internationalaffairs.org...failing-women/
    https://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deak...estic-violence

    Binge drinking makes people about 6 times more likely to be involved in domestic violence incidents, which is a correlation massively more convincing than any of the studies that suggest beliefs / media play a big role in it. Meanwhile, the programs they put people through are ideologically based but don't have any data to back up that they're effective. However if you oppose the programs they say you're part of the conspiracy, knowingly or not. These people are about as bad as anti-vaxxers because they're actively preventing the social services from moving past the ideological stuff: overthrowing "the patriarchy" becomes a more important goal than protecting individual women using evidence-based interventions.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 21st Sep 2021 at 16:49.

  15. #3665
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Homeless people accept help. This kind of people hate *ideologically* every form of help, just like you say: people with the "-ism" obsession.
    Of course they're in the left wing too, but the "conspiracy", paranoid ones now are only in the right wing (being in this area the national-socialists like the russian nazbols or the "sovereignists" here in Europe too - amusingly together with their libertarian arch-nemesis).
    These people have the same "pseudorevolutionary" perspective of muslim terrorists.
    Last edited by lowenz; 21st Sep 2021 at 17:39.

  16. #3666
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    Homeless people accept help. This kind of people hate *ideologically* every form of help, just like you say: people with the "-ism" obsession.
    Of course they're in the left wing too, but the "conspiracy", paranoid ones now are only in the right wing (being in this area the national-socialists like the russian nazbols or the "sovereignists" here in Europe too - amusingly together with their libertarian arch-nemesis).
    These people have the same "pseudorevolutionary" perspective of muslim terrorists.
    One big reason is that liberalism is actually centrism, in liberal democracies. The right wing and left wing are the fringes. But the liberals control the "left" wing party, so they keep out the far-left's conspiracy theories and anti-sciency elements from having power. Whereas with the right wing party, those ideas basically seep through and influence policy.

    https://www.iflscience.com/environme...-right/page-3/

    Comedian John Oliver recently picked apart, among other things, Stein’s scientifically dubious viewpoints on national television. Taking that fateful step from cynicism into outright conspiracy theory madness, she declared Oliver a member of a conspiracy linked to none other than Hillary Clinton.
    So John Oliver, who is moderate left picked apart the anti-science stance of Jill Stein, the leader of a US left-wing party, The Green Party and now he's part of the conspiracy. Similarly the whole 'patriarchy' thing is really a massive conspiracy theory, even if unwitting, the idea is that there's a single force driving things that way, and that's clearly untrue. It's an unrealistic boiling down of complex societal issues into an easily digested concept, simplification, then using that to radicalize people. It's arguable that this has killed people already, if you look into how that movement promotes ineffective non-evidence-based interventions instead of being open to looking at multi-factor analysis in a serious way. Sure, the right wing is the bigger issue right now but that doesn't mean it's only right wing beliefs that can go off the rails.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 21st Sep 2021 at 18:12.

  17. #3667
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    The real HARD question is this: we need this kind of people?
    I'd say her 10-year-old children certainly needed her.

  18. #3668
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    I'd say her 10-year-old children certainly needed her.
    Well, it seems that she didn't think so.

  19. #3669
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    People die in stupid ways all the time. Doesn't mean they are not needed or that they don't want to see their children grow up.

    And, y'know, even if someone isn't needed, that doesn't mean they should be ignored and not given help. If you neglect a group of people, it will hurt more than just those people. No man is an island.
    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Sep 2021 at 08:28.

  20. #3670
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    You're right but these guys consider themself the "haralds" of freedom, justice and eventually "truth" when in reality they're misguided (by professional political manipulators thanks to their own pride) lunatics.
    They're self-righteous in the most abysmal way possible.

    I got the vaccine (Pfizer) in July and I'm well, my mother (with an hystory of the infamous thrombocytopenia possibly linked to AstraZeneca as side effect) got it too (AstraZeneca) and luckly she got - before and after the vaccination - her blood screening exams and guess what.....NO problem at all! The *same* values!
    And I'm talking about a subject who should have got Pfizer and not AstraZeneca due to her medical condition.
    Nonetheless, no problem at all. The same for her husband (my father) and her brother. And of course we're not "special" in any possible way.
    Last edited by lowenz; 22nd Sep 2021 at 09:17.

  21. #3671
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com

  22. #3672
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Seems no one is capable of understanding the difference between live viruses and pseudoviruses.

    Anyone want to explain specifically what the supposed risk was here?
    The only one I can see if the researchers exposing themselves to bat coronaviruses.

    Protein containing nanoparticles can not modify bat coronaviruses to infect humans
    Well, potentially the occasional virion, if it picked up a chimeric spike protein, could by some fluke enter a human cell, but it would reproduce to create bat coronavirus.

    Likewise, the phrase:

    “Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) proposed injecting deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and ‘batified’ mice, and much, much more.”
    Appears to be referring to the document nbore posted, obtained via the FOI request, which only refer to using pseudovirus, which is not capable of infecting or reproducing.

    And this is ignoring all of the context - of course bat coronaviruses warrant study for potential to infect humans - this was seen as a pressing concern 14 years ago after SARS: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2176051/

    I guess the Telegraph is becoming more and more like a tabloid over time...

  23. #3673
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, I would have expected something like this from the New York Post or Daily Mail.

  24. #3674
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    It's galling how people seem to think that repeating the phrase "gain of function" enough times makes them seem like they understand how gene engineering and viruses work.

  25. #3675
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Those research proposals we had the link for before were about experiments with modified Sars-1 type viruses. But Covid-19 isn't closely related to those.

    So that's a big gap in the claims, since you'd basically have to have had an experimental strain that's 99.9% current Covid to do the 'gain of function' thing to. But nobody's been able to find another virus in any research samples that's anywhere near that close.

    Also: consider this, some people say it's too much of a coincidence that there's a virology lab near the wet market. But think of it this way, coincidences work both ways. If there really WAS an outbreak at the virology lab, AND it was already fully human-transmissable at this point then it wouldn't have needed to spread **to the wet market** rather than anywhere else. And if it went the 25 km straight from the lab to the wet market, then that implies that some high-level biosafety lab employees were shopping at a wholesale live animal market that was noted for being very unsanitary. Which seems pretty unlikely, given that those lab employees are probably very aware of contamination both into and out of the lab.

    Anyway, as for "coincidence", people forget it's easy to see a pattern if you're looking for one and don't really care what you find: basically you find two things, find a common feature, then retro-actively claim that's what you were looking for. And Wuhan is a very large city: it has a metro area of 19 million people, which puts it at New York sized. It's just not a "coincidence" to find at least one lab doing high-level medical research in a city of that size. And it's not like the lab *only* researches coronaviruses, so they're basically discounting that the lab researches diseases of all types, and the regional coronaviruses are just one of them, for the very reason that they're a regional threat.

    Also, one of the claims in recent articles is asking why the Chinese government didn't announce it straight away. And the fact that they tried to keep it quiet during the initial outbreak / control measures must prove they have something to hide. Unfortunately for that line of proof: that's exactly what the Chinese government did in 2002. It took them more than 3 months after the first patient died in the 2002 SARS outbreak to even inform the WHO.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 22nd Sep 2021 at 23:14.

Page 147 of 149 FirstFirst ... 4797102107112117122127132137142143144145146147148149 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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