The Coronavirus Thread

[L'Emmerdeur]

Still can't understand why you don't post a link to the material you are bringing up, Cunt. It is standard practice here.

It doesn't matter though. Lawrie is not only pushing ivermectin, she's advocating an anti-vaccine position. She bases that on the UK Yellow Card system which has all the same problems as the American VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). They are both set up for the public to report what they believe to be reactions to the vaccine. They produce raw un-vetted data which serious researchers do not consider definitive.

[Cunt]

Can you list reasonable reasons individuals might be vaccine-hesitant? Or can you only imagine crazy people 'hesitating'?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Can you list reasonable reasons individuals might be vaccine-hesitant? Or can you only imagine crazy people 'hesitating'?

People who tend to have severe allergic reactions should be cautious and consult with their doctor about whether or not to take a vaccine. At this point in the pandemic that's the only group who are justifiably hesitant, in my opinion. The fear-mongering anti-vaxxer shits and snake-oil pushing fuckers are promoting a deadly ideology, and we can see the results in areas where their bullshit is getting traction.

[Joe]

There is a lot more there. I don't blame a Canadian 'leftie' for not trying to summarise the arguments that Kory makes--it's some arcane stuff and if you don't have any background in biology it might as well be Sanskrit. The Science Based Medicine article does a decent job of explaining what the issues are, but it takes time and effort to read it, let alone following up the references.

So you really don't know who was being referenced?

No surprise, since while I did post the name of the lady here. Maybe you all really couldn't find it on your own, which is possible.

But remember, censorship is part of their claim. The fact that you can't find the latest on it (where they did mention the withdrawn study) is no surprise. Your betters don't want you to find it.

I'll try again.

Tess Lawrie is an MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence.

Says the guy who hasn't even said what podcast he's talking about. Who's trolling again?

No need to 'troll', I was mostly interested in how you dealt with the ideas she raised. Apparently, it is to dismiss the points without knowing what they are.

Her talk with Bret Weinstein, on the Dark Horse podcast (available in your favourite podcast format) is after that study, where she discusses it's withdrawl, and its effects on her analysis.

No need though, as I have my answer, thanks. That is: You guys universally would reject it, without knowing what she claimed, based on your 'politics'. Or considering the 'science is settled', or some partisan twaddle.

I am not all that interested in your rush to go debunk her now (lots of better people will, I'm sure)

What IS interesting, is how far you will go to pretend some kind of objectivity.

Now, tell me another joke, like 'Bret Weinstein is a right-wing nutter', without showing what tricked you into believing that.

I'm thinking about getting dissenter browser so I can troll Cunt on it.

Your love of trolling is why I don't have any respect left for moderation actions around 'trolling'.

Good job, pErvinalia. Now bring your trolling out of the safe-space, and maybe I'll be even MORE impressed.

Tess Lawrie on the Darkhorse podcast. What was so hard about that Cunt?

[Cunt]

That's a long list. You can't seem to imagine as many good reasons as I expected.

When you talk about 'justifiably', what about someone who just doesn't want it?

Are they allowed to ignore your concerns? Even if it imperils their health, and yours? (like hobby-obesity, or a drug/drinking habit)

And Joe, it isn't the first time I've mentioned it here. Of course, with all the folks here rushing to provide evidence that they didn't agree, you might have missed it.

They all sure did.

pic unrelated

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Joe]

And Joe, it isn't the first time I've mentioned it here. Of course, with all the folks here rushing to provide evidence that they didn't agree, you might have missed it.

They all sure did.

Since you put it in the Media Bias thread, I'm sure they did, but that wasn't my question.

What was so hard about posting it again in the Coronavirus Thread?

[Hermit]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So, let's have a look at how Ivermectin performs in the real world.

A leading pulmonologist has issued a stark warning that all the patients now admitted to his clinic thought ivermectin would protect them from contracting Covid-19.

In a chilling Facebook post, Dr Emmanuel Taban, a pulmonologist at Mediclinic Midstream in Midrand, wrote that two out of every three patients now being admitted to the hospital were taking ivermectin which, he added, offered “no benefit at all”.

While 80% of the patients admitted to the clinic during the first wave were black, of the 102 patients now admitted, 92 are white as a third wave of infections continues to roil across SA.

“Most of these patients have been taking ivermectin which was prescribed by doctors and as a result they feel protected,” he said.

He warned that people using the drug — which is an anti-parasitic medication meant for animals — believed they were safe from contracting Covid-19 which in turn led to unsafe behaviour such as not wearing masks or sanitising their hands.

Some 90% of the patients using the drug, had presented with liver damage, he added.

“I have lost five patients to liver failure from ivermectin and all patients now admitted here have all been on [the drug]," he said.

[L'Emmerdeur]

That's a long list. You can't seem to imagine as many good reasons as I expected.

When you talk about 'justifiably', what about someone who just doesn't want it?

Are they allowed to ignore your concerns? Even if it imperils their health, and yours? (like hobby-obesity, or a drug/drinking habit)

I'm answering based on my understanding of personal and public health policy. It was in that context that I used the word justifiable. The results of vaccination have been readily apparent in parts of the world where good vaccines are available. They save lives. I will acknowledge that there have been rare instances of people having adverse reactions to the vaccine. A few people have died due to extreme reactions. Compare that to the millions who did not get vaccinated, contracted the deadly 'rona and carked it.

Blithering idiots and self-styled mavericks are going to find reasons to not do such a simple thing as get a vaccine. Never mind that they may only be alive right now because they've been vaccinated before. Their blockheadedness may get them and some members of their family dead, but they will justify it in whatever way they like.

It's not my decision to require vaccination, that was made a long time ago. For travel to some countries, a suite of vaccinations is required. To attend school in many jurisdictions, vaccination is required. It's not a new concept, and it has been admirably successful from the point of view of personal and public health. In my opinion, given the death toll already taken by this virus, it makes sense to add it to the list of vaccinations which are required in various circumstances like schools, once it has been fully approved for use by school-age children.

[Cunt]

Seems Trump was right after all. Even after having covid, he got a vaccination (publicly, that fat attention-whore).

Which politicians were 'vaccine hesitant' before the Biden regime took over? I know Harris was one of them...

[pErvinalia]

I pretty much agree. We troll you as much as you troll us. The mods should take a more hands off approach. The moderation here isn't anything like it was back in the good ol' days.

If censorship is real, and free speech is honestly dangerous, then give this another think. I might not be able to respect the decisions, but I can respect the responsibility they take on, and what they are aiming for.

It's why I don't talk about most subjects here. Don't need to underline where we disagree on things. I'm going to stay positive.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with discussing things here. Your problem is the way you do it. Hint: you're not positive.

[Cunt]

I would consider your advice, but you are a self-described troll.

Even if I believe you, it wouldn't make any sense to trust you.

Sometimes funny to read though. Too bad I don't see you outside the 'safe-spaces'. It might be funny.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Seems Trump was right after all. Even after having covid, he got a vaccination (publicly, that fat attention-whore).

Which politicians were 'vaccine hesitant' before the Biden regime took over? I know Harris was one of them...

Trump didn't get the vaccination publicly and you know it. If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the mark.

You're either displaying ignorance or lying about Harris.

Citing the Trump administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kamala Harris said that she'd happily take a vaccine that doctors and scientists recommend — but absolutely not one touted by Donald Trump.

[source]

[pErvinalia]

I would consider your advice, but you are a self-described troll.

Well take it as given that I can spot trolling when I see it. And you most certainly troll.

[Brian Peacock]

Still can't understand why you don't post a link to the material you are bringing up, Cunt. It is standard practice here.

It doesn't matter though. Lawrie is not only pushing ivermectin, she's advocating an anti-vaccine position. She bases that on the UK Yellow Card system which has all the same problems as the American VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). They are both set up for the public to report what they believe to be reactions to the vaccine. They produce raw un-vetted data which serious researchers do not consider definitive.

Yeah, the yellow card system isn't a robust dataset or a research or diagnostic tool - just one element contributing to the identification of possible trends for further investigation. While medical practitioners and patients can both report side effects and other incidents related to medicines, treatments and devices, generally patients are encouraged to do so by their doctors when concerns arise, so there is a kind of low-level medical filter on the basic info.


https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/the-yellow-card-scheme/

[Brian Peacock]

That's a long list. You can't seem to imagine as many good reasons as I expected...

How many good reasons for vaccine hesitancy can you imagine, and what are they?