Coronavirus: Triple Edition

[Amentep]

58 minutes ago, teknoman2 said:

Also, i hear every day about some new case of some famous person who was diagnosed with covid... i've yet to hear about any one of them dying of it or even going to the hospital because the case was serious.

Manu Dibango - died

Placedo Domingo - hospitalized

Terrance McNally - died

Floyd Cardoz - died 

Mark Blum - died 

John Prine - died 

Jan Howard - died

Joe Diffie - died

Ken Shimura - died

Adam Schlesinger - died

Wallace Roney - died

Ellis Marsalis Jr- died 

Julie Bennet - died 

Marianne Faithful- hospitalized

Jay Benedict - died 

Allen Garfield - died

Tim Brooke-Taylor - died 

Nick Codero - died 

Danny Burstein - hospitalized

Ann Sullivan - died 

Matthew Seligman - died

Fred the Godson - died 

Roy Horne- died 

Aishwarya Ray - hospitalized 

Boris Johnson - hospitalized

Herman Cain - died

Alan Merrill - died 

Andrew Jack - died

Allen Daviau - died 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Amentep said:

Manu Dibango - died

Placedo Domingo - hospitalized

Terrance McNally - died

Floyd Cardoz - died 

Mark Blum - died 

John Prine - died 

Jan Howard - died

Joe Diffie - died

Ken Shimura - died

Adam Schlesinger - died

Wallace Roney - died

Ellis Marsalis Jr- died 

Julie Bennet - died 

Marianne Faithful- hospitalized

Jay Benedict - died 

Allen Garfield - died

Tim Brooke-Taylor - died 

Nick Codero - died 

Danny Burstein - hospitalized

Ann Sullivan - died 

Matthew Seligman - died

Fred the Godson - died 

Roy Horne- died 

Aishwarya Ray - hospitalized 

Boris Johnson - hospitalized

Herman Cain - died

Alan Merrill - died 

Andrew Jack - died

Allen Daviau - died 

easy to miss the passing of herman cain as he has become a more prolific social media contributor in death than he was in life.

Herman Cain account tweets COVID-19 ‘not as deadly’ as media says following his death

attending the super spreader event in tulsa temporal proximate to mr. cain being infected, sans mask and w/o following social distancing guidelines, was bad optics regardless of how mr. cain became ill.

oh, and is noteworthy that even in death mr. cain had the good sense to delete his original tweet proclaiming the misleading 94% underlying conditions silliness which were so recent shared in this thread.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[213374U]

 

7 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

That's ultimately a problem with your legislators. If they want to do that sort of thing they'd just use a different excuse for it when presented be it terrorism or external interference or whatever. Solution is ultimately to elect better legislators.

I'm also mildly miffed that this is apparently only becoming an issue now because the measures are sweeping. A few years back, our government decreed a state of alarm -the same executive tool they used now- to militarize air traffic control after a particularly devastating strike orchestrated by their syndicate in the middle of the holiday season, which forced the airspace to close briefly. The decree was used to just abrogate their labor rights and subject them to military authority, but no one gave a toss because people just wanted to be able to fly. And because the government wasn't taken to task for their frivolous use of emergency powers back then, when the rona thing blew up, they did as they pleased even if the Constitution didn't really allow them to do what they were doing because they know there are no consequences for executive overreach.

Many of the same who are now vigorously protesting were instead cheering when the government came down like a ton of bricks on Catalan MPs and civil servants for "disobedience and sedition". It's great when the authoritarian boot worn by incompetent piece of **** politicians steps on those you don't much like. When it's on your neck, it's nowhere near as fun, it seems.

[BruceVC]

What do you  guys think should be done about vaccine denialists and or people who claim they will not take the any vaccine around Covid when it is released. We see this in several countries and particularly the USA where apparently as many as 30-35 % of people polled wont take the vaccine

Do you feel they have this right or do you think it should be legally mandatory. I think it should be obligatory  because the virus spread is not about the individual but how a person by not taking the vaccine can spread the virus so it shouldnt be seen as an individual decision but rather a collective decision which all governments should enforce ?

[Gfted1]

Tbh, I probably wont take Covid-19 vaccine v1.0 either. Unless its mandated nats.

[BruceVC]

56 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Tbh, I probably wont take Covid-19 vaccine v1.0 either. Unless its mandated nats.

I consider you a reasonable person so your view on this matters, why woudn't you take the Covid vaccine?

Do you ever take the yearly flu vaccine, I have  never taken the flu vaccine but its only because I am very fortunate and generally never get flu

[Gfted1]

Ive never taken the flu vaccine either (like you I almost never catch the flu), but Im not an antivaxxer. I dont want to be the guinea pig for, imo, a vaccine that is being rushed out due to all the pant crapping going on. Just like the chicken littles on this forum that qq into every post, you cant see straight with your eyes full of tears. Ill get on board ~V2.0 or 3.0 unless they force me sooner.

[BruceVC]

15 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Ive never taken the flu vaccine either (like you I almost never catch the flu), but Im not an antivaxxer. I dont want to be the guinea pig for, imo, a vaccine that is being rushed out due to all the pant crapping going on. Just like the chicken littles on this forum that qq into every post, you cant see straight with your eyes full of tears. Ill get on board ~V2.0 or 3.0 unless they force me sooner.

This makes sense and supports your view and others who are not anti-vaxxers but rather have concerns with the risk that the vaccine may be rushed in some cases 

Living in SA by the time my demographic gets the vaccine and its freely available I am confident it will be on V3-4 so I will have less concern than living in a first world country which has resources to ensure it citizens get V1.0 

ps : I like your characterization of " V1- xxx "  , its  a good way to frame the general concern about not being a guinea pig  

 

Also  your view on this has now changed my view that the vaccine should be mandatory because push back can be valid  based on the " guinea pig "  concern 

Edited September 1, 2020 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

And as an added benefit, the dose I dont take can be used for an old person, as they tend to have multiple health conditions. Some might call me a hero. Bwahahahaha.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

What do you  guys think should be done about vaccine denialists and or people who claim they will not take the any vaccine around Covid when it is released. We see this in several countries and particularly the USA where apparently as many as 30-35 % of people polled wont take the vaccine

Do you feel they have this right or do you think it should be legally mandatory. I think it should be obligatory  because the virus spread is not about the individual but how a person by not taking the vaccine can spread the virus so it shouldnt be seen as an individual decision but rather a collective decision which all governments should enforce ?

the problem with a large % of people opting out of the vaccine is that the vaccine is only gonna be effective if a high enough percentage o' the population takes it. this is much like the bogus 94% underlying conditions article some persons latch onto. if you are too ignorant to understand your mistake, you could be reaching complete wrong conclusions. once there is enough doses such that the general public will be having access, forgoing the vaccine is not saving that dose for somebody else. rather, forgoing is placing old people and people with comorbidities at more risk than necessary.

https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/protection

getting the vaccine, particular if you are younger and healthier is a bit like wearing a mask as the main benefit is it will protect other people who are at a heightened risk of dying from contracting the disease, a disease which may lead to acute respiratory distress which is indeed a pretty freaking unpleasant way to die.

some number o' people, possibly many old people, won't be able to take the vaccine. the wingnuts who disbelieve every media source but converse post every conspiracy theory or fringe source claims is gonna be suspicious regardless o' how well the vaccine is tested and they won't take. will be some who opt out for religious reasons and will be impossible to force 'em to take the vaccine. each such identifiable and predictable group is gonna make the vaccine, from a practical pov, less effective.

the thing is, with the trump administration making it apparent he can convince the cdc and fda to report that which is not true, the ignorant and wingnuts and conspiracy theorists is gonna gain converts from people who otherwise would be salvageable. it is reasonable to question whether a vaccine declared safe by the fda will indeed be safe, though again, ignorance is the real danger here as it is far more likely that a busted arse vaccine rushed through the final government protocols would be ineffective as opposed to actual dangerous. 

is too many people too ignorant to know just how ignorant they are... which would be fine save for fact that in pandemic situations, such ignorance is not a personal choice with the consequences remaining personal. don't wear a mask and fail to social distance means you may spread the disease asymptomatic. 30% o' the population opts out of a vaccine which is initial maybe 60-70% effective and many old people die unnecessarily.

there is no vaccine for stoopid.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

the problem with a large % of people opting out of the vaccine is that the vaccine is only gonna be effective if a high enough percentage o' the population takes it. this is much like the bogus 94% underlying conditions article some persons latch onto. if you are too ignorant to understand your mistake, you could be reaching complete wrong conclusions. once there is enough doses such that the general public will be having access, forgoing the vaccine is not saving that dose for somebody else. rather, forgoing is placing old people and people with comorbidities at more risk than necessary.

https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/work/protection

getting the vaccine, particular if you are younger and healthier is a bit like wearing a mask as the main benefit is it will protect other people who are at a heightened risk of dying from contracting the disease, a disease which may lead to acute respiratory distress which is indeed a pretty freaking unpleasant way to die.

some number o' people, possibly many old people, won't be able to take the vaccine. the wingnuts who disbelieve every media source but converse post every conspiracy theory or fringe source claims is gonna be suspicious regardless o' how well the vaccine is tested and they won't take. will be some who opt out for religious reasons and will be impossible to force 'em to take the vaccine. each such identifiable and predictable group is gonna make the vaccine, from a practical pov, less effective.

the thing is, with the trump administration making it apparent he can convince the cdc and fda to report that which is not true, the ignorant and wingnuts and conspiracy theorists is gonna gain converts from people who otherwise would be salvageable. it is reasonable to question whether a vaccine declared safe by the fda will indeed be safe, though again, ignorance is the real danger here as it is far more likely that a busted arse vaccine rushed through the final government protocols would be ineffective as opposed to actual dangerous. 

is too many people too ignorant to know just how ignorant they are... which would be fine save for fact that in pandemic situations, such ignorance is not a personal choice with the consequences remaining personal. don't wear a mask and fail to social distance means you may spread the disease asymptomatic. 30% o' the population opts out of a vaccine which is initial maybe 60-70% effective and many old people die unnecessarily.

there is no vaccine for stoopid.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Yes you make some good points but the vaccine will, or should be , initially  used for elderly people and or people at  high risk, I dont imagine young people getting it first so why would elderly people not get it or not take  the vaccine unless they refuse but that is there choice because my initial suggestion of making it mandatory will have legal challengers as Im sure  you will be able to explain based on the US Constitution 

The outcome of this should be even if younger people refuse to take the vaccine they wont be able to unintentionally spread the virus to groups at high risk  because these groups will have access to the vaccine as a priority . So I believe the harm  even hardcore vaccine denialists may bring should be mitigated ?

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 

The outcome of this should be even if younger people refuse to take the vaccine they wont be able to unintentionally spread the virus to groups at high risk  because these groups will have access to the vaccine as a priority . So I believe the harm  even hardcore vaccine denialists may bring should be mitigated ?

you are making flawed assumptions. younger and healthier people who refuse to take the vaccine will indeed spread it to old people. the vaccine will not be anywhere near 100% effective and many old people won't be able to take the vaccine regardless. you have reversed. the hardcore vaccine denialists, if they approach 30%  or more of the population as is being reported in the US, will severe undercut the mitigation effects o' the vaccine. 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/how-effective-does-a-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-need-to-be-to-stop-the

"If the COVID-19 pandemic was just beginning and the population infected was close to zero percent, the simulations show that vaccine efficacy would have to be at least 60 percent to stop the coronavirus if the entire population was vaccinated. Given the number of susceptible people who couldn’t be vaccinated because of age or health problems and the number who would refuse to be vaccinated, that’s probably impossible."

...

"How Many People Get Vaccinated Is Crucial

"Based on these findings, a vaccine with an efficacy as low as 60 percent could still stop the pandemic and allow society to return to normal. However, most if not all of the population would have to be vaccinated.

"This seems unlikely, given polls showing that only about three-quarters of Americans say they would get a coronavirus vaccine if assured that it was safe.

"With fewer people protected, a vaccine would have to have an efficacy of at least 80 percent to be able to stop the pandemic by itself, meaning social distancing could be completely relaxed. This can provide a target to aim for when developing COVID-19 coronavirus vaccines."

bruce has inverted the problem.

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"What do you  guys think should be done about vaccine denialists and or people who claim they will not take the any vaccine around Covid when it is released. "

 

Nothing.

 

Their body their choice.

 

I'm not against taking it myself if it is proven effective.

 

But, I don't believe in slavery.

 

Typical KKK Lefttard, on the other hand believes in the following: If 30% of people refuse to take the vaccine that is 30% of the population that should be executed on the spot.

 

They would line people up., and ask a simple question:

Take vaccine?

   Yes.

     Here you go. Good luck.

 

  No.

   *gun shot rings out*

 

      GAME OVER.

 

 

Choice and consequences.

 

  

Edited September 1, 2020 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

14 minutes ago, Volourn said:

"What do you  guys think should be done about vaccine denialists and or people who claim they will not take the any vaccine around Covid when it is released. "

 

Nothing.

 

Their body their choice.

 

I'm not against taking it myself if it is proven effective.

 

But, I don't believe in slavery.

 

Gromnir, on the other hand belives in the following.: If 30% of people refuse to take the vaccine that is 30% of the population that should be executed on the spot.

 

He would line people up., and ask a simple question:

Take vaccine?

   Yes.

     Here you go. Good luck.

 

  No.

   *gun shot rings out*

 

      GAME OVER.

 

 

Choice and consequences.

 

  

point to where we suggested anybody should be forced to take the vaccine much less executed for not taking it. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

So, I did a rare thing, and actually checked this thread (not gonna check every covid/political thread lol). Could not find any post of Grom's that even hinted at the above scenario so I will give him this win and I edited my above post. He is in the clear. My  rare apologizes.

[LadyCrimson]

Vaccine - yeah I'd be in the not an "anti-vaxxor" but still wouldn't want to be an early adopter camp.  They can be iffy things, with possible long term effects unknown, as well as new ones possibly being developed later etc. Shouldn't even be considered to be mandatory until at least a few years of it being "out there" - and then only if covid19 is still considered a major pandemic/issue at that time.

Edited September 1, 2020 by LadyCrimson

[Gromnir]

Fauci debunks theories of low CDC coronavirus death toll: 'There are 180,000-plus deaths' in U.S.

On Sunday, Twitter removed a post retweeted by Trump that claimed the CDC had "quietly" updated its guidance to indicate only 6% of the country's coronavirus death toll — roughly 9,000 deaths —  was actually caused by the virus, according to a CNN report. The tweet said the remaining 94% had "other serious illnesses." 

Fauci told the ABC program "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that the CDC guidance, last updated on Aug. 26, indicates that of the people who have died from the virus, "a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just Covid." However, people with underlying illnesses also die from Covid-19, he said.

"That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of Covid didn't die of Covid-19. They did," Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the program. "So the numbers you've been hearing -- there are 180,000-plus deaths -- are real deaths from Covid-19. Let (there) not be any confusion about that." 

"It's not 9,000 deaths from Covid-19, it's 180-plus-thousand deaths," Fauci said. 

am thinking is good we got memorialization o' the original misleading info 'cause w/o is easier to dismiss gullibility and ignorance o' faceless masses. tell selves, "who could possibly fall for such obvious claptrap?"  (am old enough that we actual use words like "claptrap," so sue us.) we marginalize those who don't know enough to know better, but these folks is also affected by the pandemic direct and indirect. their behaviour impacts others, including their own family members and friends, and they are not self aware enough to see selves as acting irresponsible.  these nameless and faceless persons read something somewhere which tells 'em there is so much overreaction to covid-19 which is what they want to believe instead o' acknowledging the reality, a reality which is all to clear that the failure to take more serious action has placed the US near the bottom o' relative world deaths as a percentage o' population... and that is with first world medicine keeping deaths lower than would be the case in many nations who don't have mayo clinics and mt. sinai medical. 

were only one person on these boards who needs face unfortunate history regarding embarrassing promotion and tenacious embrace o' bad info, but is chances he weren't alone in believing the hogwash being promoted by many including the POTUS. 

should be a teachable moment, but hurl is far better suited for such than old Gromnir. am not particular motivated to empathize with those we see as lost cause, but such shouldn't stop others from doing the right thing.

HA! Good Fun!

ps 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/reasons-to-vaccinate.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/index.html

vaccines is, relative speaking, safe. you need to be open and honest with your doctor about existing medical conditions and any drugs you might currently be taking, but real long-term serious side-effects and dangers o' any common available vaccine approved by the fda is gonna be low, and much lower than dangers o' contracting or spreading diseases.

talk with a doctor.  we may make you feel embarrassed about questioning the safety o' vaccines, but is highly unlikely your doctor will behave so unprofessional. ask. don't rely on the internet.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[LadyCrimson]

I'd like to be clear/add that I do think people in the heath worker employment fields it should be mandatory in order to keep working in that field.

It's one thing for a lazy arse like me who literally almost never leaves the house even when there is no pandemic, to go "eh, I'll wait a bit first" and another for those who are constantly extra-risk-exposed/dealing with a contagion. imo, of course.

I'm also someone who tends to have at least mild (what doctors often call "unusual/unexpected") but uncomfy reactions to a lot of drugs, vaccines, anesthesia, heck even Novocaine, making me rather paranoid about any drugs/medicine if I absolutely don't require them. I don't even like taking stuff for a headache. So that's a just-me pysch. issue.

Edited September 1, 2020 by LadyCrimson

[ShadySands]

I'll gladly take a vaccine that is fully vetted but I don't want to be the guy that gets polio from the polio vaccine. Yes, I know that was 65 years ago but Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[Zoraptor]

You won't be able to catch covid from any vaccine I'm aware of as they won't use dead/ attenuated virus. Nowadays they tend to build vaccines around low variance likely or proven antigens (ie proteins/ sections thereof the immune system is already known to target, and that have very low natural mutation rates). They had to use attenuated or dead virus vaccines originally because that was the only method available- similar to how diabetic's insulin used to come from pigs but now doesn't.

You might get an allergic reaction or similar, but probably if you get an allergic reaction to a vaccine you'd have got it to the pathogen the vaccine targets. Vetting is far more likely to be for effectiveness than danger. If there are big problems (as very occasionally happens) such as extreme allergic reactions they're caught by trials.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Zoraptor

[ShadySands]

Sorry, I didn't actually mean that as a serious 1 to 1 example. I'm just unwilling to trust anything that's rushed out the gate, especially by this administration. Sure, it's an irrational fear but I'm also afeared of sharks and lightning.

If all the right experts sign off on it and none of the first volunteers sprout a 3rd or 1st testicle then by all means stick that dope in my arm.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

Sorry, I didn't actually mean that as a serious 1 to 1 example. I'm just unwilling to trust anything that's rushed out the gate, especially by this administration. Sure, it's an irrational fear but I'm also afeared of sharks and lightning.

If all the right experts sign off on it and none of the first volunteers sprout a 3rd or 1st testicle then by all means stick that dope in my arm.

first, sharks are objectively terrifying.

am knowing the chances o' getting bit much less killed is exceeding small, but the high degree o' unpredictability is part o' what makes us always afeared o' shark infested waters... though not afraid enough that it kept us out o' the water for long.

second, this administration lies so consistent we now question stuff which we shouldn't have any reason to doubt. am understanding reluctance to believe claims o' efficacy and safety given previous wh claims. 

"it is reasonable to question whether a vaccine declared safe by the fda will indeed be safe, though again, ignorance is the real danger here as it is far more likely that a busted arse vaccine rushed through the final government protocols would be ineffective as opposed to actual dangerous."

am not a conspiracy theory guy and even Gromnir admits we wonder if the administration would be willing to push a vaccine with known dangerous side effects just so long as the incidence o' such dangers is below some unspecific and horrifying acceptable amount.

yet another reason to hope we get a new President following the november election.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

18 hours ago, Volourn said:

So, I did a rare thing, and actually checked this thread (not gonna check every covid/political thread lol). Could not find any post of Grom's that even hinted at the above scenario so I will give him this win and I edited my above post. He is in the clear. My  rare apologizes.

I like to see you and Gromnir extending the hand of courtesy and mutual respect , well played. I have always believed you guys have more in common than you realize. And from Gromnirs side he even "Liked " your post which is  not common for Gromnir 

Unlike me  I can potentially  " Like " 5-6  posts a day but I can also explain in a logical and objective way why I " Like "  the post or I like parts of it which is a good enough reason for me to "  Like "  any post. The point is I dont just " Like "  posts on a whim for no reason ....oh and particularly humorous  posts or posts that make me laugh  invoke a " Like" 

[213374U]

10 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Sorry, I didn't actually mean that as a serious 1 to 1 example. I'm just unwilling to trust anything that's rushed out the gate, especially by this administration. Sure, it's an irrational fear but I'm also afeared of sharks and lightning.

If all the right experts sign off on it and none of the first volunteers sprout a 3rd or 1st testicle then by all means stick that dope in my arm.

Lightning strikes are indeed terrifying.

There's always a risk with new vaccines, but the risk is even lower than from rona itself. The board that's to sign off on the vaccine and decide whether to end tests early* is made up of scholars and not government officials, so it's supposed to be as free from political pressure -of which you can be assured there's bound to be a hefty amount- as can be.

Honestly, the problem with the vaccine is likely to be more the effectiveness than the safety. Flu vaccine is something like ~50% effective.

*Considering that there's a, IIRC, ~30% of Americans who are unwilling to get the vaccine, if anything pressure would be for not ending tests early even if data coming in is overwhelmingly positive.

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, 213374U said:

L

Honestly, the problem with the vaccine is likely to be more the effectiveness than the safety. Flu vaccine is something like ~50% effective.

 

Those are not acceptable or even remotely effective odds.....even if they turn out to be true  with the v1.0 vaccines

The good news this is a unique virus, albeit similar to others ,  and we cannot prognosticate with any real  accuracy how effective the vaccine will be or how more effective V.xxxx will be until its released and we see the real outcome 

So Im much more optimistic than  a 50 %  efficacy 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by BruceVC