Coronavirus 666: This is one sick thread!!!

[Amentep]

I sometimes think of Michael Crichton's State of Fear when I read about some of the stuff going on today (and of course, I think State of Fear was misunderstood in its day and dismissed as a Climate Change denier book, when I don't think that was the point Crichton was trying to get at).

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Amentep said:

I sometimes think of Michael Crichton's State of Fear when I read about some of the stuff going on today (and of course, I think State of Fear was misunderstood in its day and dismissed as a Climate Change denier book, when I don't think that was the point Crichton was trying to get at).

Can you clarify what you mean, what is the book about and do you feel their are  degrees of overreach by many governments specifically with this new variant and continuing with lockdowns or wanting to continue with lockdowns? Or  do you feel continued lockdowns are justified ?

[Amentep]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

what is the book about 

The book is about ... 641 pages long.  <ba-dum-dum>

Thank you, I'll be here all week...

...

Seriously though,

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Can you clarify what you mean, what is the book about and do you feel their are  degrees of overreach by many governments specifically with this new variant and continuing with lockdowns or wanting to continue with lockdowns? Or  do you feel continued lockdowns are justified ?

Michael Crichton's book is about a group of eco-terrorists trying to create a man made tsunami to publicize Climate Change through a faked natural even that they'd tie to Global Warming (and to be fair, many people saw it as a climate denial book and dismissed it).  But what Crichton said he was trying to warn against was the politicization of science and conflicts of interest in scientific research that may encourage researchers to ignore data that doesn't support their hypothesis or a political agenda.  Further to that, he talked when it came out about an example that already existed - in the 70s there was a big fear regarding an oncoming Ice Age that came about because some news outlets found a small research paper that drew a conclusion on data at the time indicating Earth was cooling and felt it was compelling enough to promote as a thing to fear so viewers would turn in to view the latest information about the disaster headed their way.

So when I read an article about a scientist claiming (regardless of whether the claim is true or not) that they were pressured not to report that a variant was 'mild', the book pops in my head as it, as a concept at least, fits the idea of what Crichton feared - scientific data being selectively used to generate fear, and in that fear to generate action towards a theoretical planned goal.

[BruceVC]

26 minutes ago, Amentep said:

The book is about ... 641 pages long.  <ba-dum-dum>

Thank you, I'll be here all week...

...

Seriously though,

Michael Crichton's book is about a group of eco-terrorists trying to create a man made tsunami to publicize Climate Change through a faked natural even that they'd tie to Global Warming (and to be fair, many people saw it as a climate denial book and dismissed it).  But what Crichton said he was trying to warn against was the politicization of science and conflicts of interest in scientific research that may encourage researchers to ignore data that doesn't support their hypothesis or a political agenda.  Further to that, he talked when it came out about an example that already existed - in the 70s there was a big fear regarding an oncoming Ice Age that came about because some news outlets found a small research paper that drew a conclusion on data at the time indicating Earth was cooling and felt it was compelling enough to promote as a thing to fear so viewers would turn in to view the latest information about the disaster headed their way.

So when I read an article about a scientist claiming (regardless of whether the claim is true or not) that they were pressured not to report that a variant was 'mild', the book pops in my head as it, as a concept at least, fits the idea of what Crichton feared - scientific data being selectively used to generate fear, and in that fear to generate action towards a theoretical planned goal.

Excellent analogy, it makes sense

Personally I think the fearmongering around this latest variant was not done to control or influence  society in a nefarious way but I think governments are just nervous after Delta and overreacted because Omicron was so transmissible

But I do think the scientific knowledge was abused with Omicron to embellish the risk 

[Gromnir]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-deaths-in-u-s-exceed-deltas-peak-as-covid-19-optimism-rises-in-europe-11643201653

is people who inexplicable think omicron were a nothingburger or somesuch silliness. the current surge represents the second most deadly we has experienced during the pandemic, 'cause in spite of the diminished lethality o' an individual case o' covid due to omicron compared to delta, the transmissibility o' omicron has more than made up for the difference.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

am gonna keep linking. 

americans, who 'cause o' aforementioned anxiety issues had worked extreme hard to convince self that +600k deaths from covid were some kinda exaggeration or the result o' government or big pharma conspiracies were looking for any excuse to marginalize covid-19, so when omicron becomes dominant and the case counts began to surge, there were a segment o' the population who once again mocked scientific guidance and they felt justified in their stoopid selfishness 'cause they read somewheres that omicron were far less lethal than delta.

'course hospitalization rates began to climb in the US, so surely at that point, which admitted woulda' been too late to ensure some kinda useful mitigation efforts, woulda' seen reasonable people adjust their thinking on the relative dangers o' omicron, yes?

nope. an all too predictable, "nope."

that said, is worth recognizing that 'cause o' the extreme transmissibility o' omicron, the effectiveness o' previous mitigation approaches were gonna be reduced. woulda' needed practice arguable impractical social distancing, although such were still advisable when dealing with highly vulnerable segments o' the population. 'course freaking vaccinations and boosters woulda' once again helped prevent serious outcomes from covid-19 infections and n-95 masks, seeing as how they is +95% effective at preventing spread in indoor environments, woulda' gone a long way in reducing the impact o' omicron if there were something approaching universal adoption, though such were never gonna happen in the US. is arguable that 'cause o' the intransigence o' the ill-informed and recognizing the measles equivalent transmissibility o' omicron, working to protect any save the most vulnerable were wasted effort, but such is the kinda calculus we expect from politicians instead o' scientists and doctors. 

regardless, am just not certain how people can look at hospitalizations and deaths attributed so far to omicron (those numbers is gonna continue to be noteworthy for at least the next week and a half as omicron has followed the same case and hospitalization trends as past surges) and convince self that somehow the dangers o' omicron were exaggerated.

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

 

If me being obtuse in a sentence or two gets somebody else to write paragraphs, and then I go and do the exact same thing again for the same kind of reaction, I do believe the goal of...how do you say it, "trolling", has been accomplished.

[Gromnir]

am thinking you give some o' the trolls far too much credit, or too little? dunno. 

sure, a "made you post," kinda thing is frequent the puerile excuse, but is rare convincing. am recalling when a former mod played that card with us, then went apoplectic. i was only posting to get a rise out of you. neener-neener. is hardly convincing when the troll gets worked up and increasing bufoonish. example:

 

there is of course more recent examples, but perhaps the wounds is too fresh, eh? 

@HoonDing on the other hand, is exact the kinda thing you describe, and is ez to distinguish his drive-by efforts from the gibbering types who is apparent sensitive to baiting.  the one's who keep coming back for more is not just purposeful turning themselves into a punching bag 'cause they think doing so is a win.

HA! Good Fun!

ps we will note that removing the topic complete from covid-19 does make moderation more likely. wanna discuss posting dods and don't sans any thread relevant contribution is likely to get things shut down. 

to try and add something o' value...

is way back from 2020. is impressive just how useful dr. paul offit insights were and that in spite o' changing data, his observations 'bout mistaken notions o' herd immunity, usefulness o' masks and the practical value o' vaccines short and long-term, and dispelling a few conspiracy theories.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

If me being obtuse in a sentence or two gets somebody else to write paragraphs, and then I go and do the exact same thing again for the same kind of reaction, I do believe the goal of...how do you say it, "trolling", has been accomplished.

Sounds serious Barti....you must be talking about those " intellectually dishonest " people that both of us are committed to ostracizing. They are a scourge I tell you , an absolute scourge 

[majestic]

#nevermind

Edited February 12, 2022 by majestic

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

am thinking you give some o' the trolls far too much credit, or too little? dunno. 

HoonDing deliberately makes himself obvious, which in turn doesn't inspire any paragraphs of writing from anyone else in reply, because we all recognize such silliness for exactly what it is. Is it still trolling if we're all in on the joke and always treat it as such? After all, there's no trick that results in us wasting genuine thought or emotion (and never mind our time) if we're all perfectly cognizant of the situation. Compare that to the countless times you have gone through the trouble of writing paragraphs and repeating yourself ad nauseum to someone who was never in the market of even slightly shifting their view...with no intellectual honesty or integrity on display, you have wasted hours of your time trying to reach someone that was never remotely reachable in the first place, and yet who apparently expected you to remain open to whatever silly agenda they were trying to push. That, to me, is a much more insidious form of trolling than just about anything else I can think of.

[Gorth]

4 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

HoonDing deliberately makes himself obvious, which in turn doesn't inspire any paragraphs of writing from anyone else in reply, because we all recognize such silliness for exactly what it is. Is it still trolling if we're all in on the joke and always treat it as such? After all, there's no trick that results in us wasting genuine thought or emotion (and never mind our time) if we're all perfectly cognizant of the situation. Compare that to the countless times you have gone through the trouble of writing paragraphs and repeating yourself ad nauseum to someone who was never in the market of even slightly shifting their view...with no intellectual honesty or integrity on display, you have wasted hours of your time trying to reach someone that was never remotely reachable in the first place, and yet who apparently expected you to remain open to whatever silly agenda they were trying to push. That, to me, is a much more insidious form of trolling than just about anything else I can think of.

Sometimes a side effect of "paragraphs" can be beneficial for the bystanders, even if wasted on the original poster. So, even if not hitting where it's needed the most, can still be beneficial to others.

 

Edit: Bystanders being a better word than onlookers.

[Bartimaeus]

Just now, Gorth said:

Sometimes a side effect of "paragraphs" can be beneficial for the onlookers, even if wasted on the original poster. So, even if not hitting where it's needed the most, can still be beneficial to others.

Perhaps...but on the other hand, not engaging with bad faith actors at all to begin with results in discussions moving forward without them, which necessarily limits how far their viewpoints may propagate in the first place. We've all certainly seen situations where a certain poster comes out of nowhere with some bat**** crazy viewpoint...and then someone else magnanimously ignores that post and replies with something else entirely, and the entire thread continues on without ever having addressed the insanity of that particular poster - it's quickly forgotten. Without being engaged with, you are forced to repeatedly speak into an ever-expansive void...and that is the very situation which results in a poster feeling alienated and as if they're wasting their time with posting, or at least with the way they currently like to post.

[Gromnir]

13 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Compare that to the countless times you have gone through the trouble of writing paragraphs and repeating yourself ad nauseum to someone who was never in the market of even slightly shifting their view...with no intellectual honesty or integrity on display, you have wasted hours of your time trying to reach someone that was never remotely reachable in the first place, and yet who apparently expected you to remain open to whatever silly agenda they were trying to push. That, to me, is a much more insidious form of trolling than just about anything else I can think of.

oh, we never had any notion o' changing the minds o' those obvious obtuse and intransigent. as @Gorth notes, the paragraphs is useful to speak to those who is less immovable but nevertheless possessing similar views. is impossible to use reason to change the mind o' somebody such as sharp_one who did not come to their conclusions through reason, but that don't mean there ain't others out there who nevertheless believe unreasonable and simple are unaware o' what is the actual law regarding 4th amendment issues or why increasing vaccination rates leads to a higher % of vaccinated people dying from covid-19. etc.

also, and have mentioned this previous, we would block some o' the worst offenders o' obtuse, but the board software makes such impossible. in rl we had to always polite steer people to doing what was in their own best interest, even if they were self destructively ignorant; were kinda the worst part o' the job. those who abuse authority or those previous identified shmucks immune to reason who nevertheless feel the need to announce to the world how intransigent and ignorant they wish to be in spite o' any proffer o' facts is kinda representing an attractive nuisance to us. the whole Gromnir persona, +20 years past, were invented 'cause from our pov, too many o' the regulars on the bg2 boards were toolbags who seemed to find it amusing to mock "no00bs" and spout off 'bout things they clear weren't particular knowledgeable 'bout themselves. were cathartic for us to use the Gromnir bit to chastise folks we would need other wise placate in rl. 

like we said, if ignore were possible, we would use, 'cause as am getting older is less amusing to, "expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of (brutal) education," but am admitted quite happy to indulge when the worst offenders offer us the chance.

"gonna make more use o' ignore 'cause chances are the next time we see somebody post something monumental asinine, am gonna comment. yeah, chances are we face some kinda sisyphean trial as we attempt to explain something which should be self evident, and no doubt we will need endure the comically retributive squeaks o' rage from those who feel wronged, but am petty enough to not be overconcerned, even if am agreeing with the general sentiment that is we should be more wary o' stoopid and angry.  as such, where is possible, ignore is probable our best option." -- Gromnir, 28 dec 2021

am aware is petty, but we can live with such a burden.

but again, trying to contribute at least something o' value...

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gromnir]

aside:

is not an excuse, but am gonna once again observe how we rare had admirable clients. first amendment cases happen at the margins. people rare comment 'bout just how openminded and reasonable is religious zealots and even cultists. everybody knows white supremacists is models o' intelligence, justice and decency. we dealt with the most loathsome and obtuse: strip club owners, gang leaders, teacher's unions. kidding 'bout the last one... mostly. every day needing champion the first amendment rights o' those who, if roles were reversed, woulda' happily trampled on the speech religion, press and association rights o' others, were exhausting. get a chance to respond to the smallminded and willful ignorant w/o needing be nice is refreshing. 

moving on...

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/shame-cometh-the-jared-kushner-story

During the early days of the pandemic, he set up a shadow task force to devise an appropriate response. When that task force gave him its recommendations—masks, contact tracing, federal coordination of supplies, etc.—he ignored them. The virus, he saw, was hitting the Blue States the hardest. It would help his father-in-law politically, he came to believe, if the pandemic continued to rage in those states. This way, his father-in-law could blame the governors of those states, who were all Democrats, for the escalating public health crisis, avoiding responsibility. So he decided to scuttle the plans given him by his own task force, and let the virus run amok.

At the time, the states hit the hardest by covid-19 were New York, New Jersey, and California. New York: where he lived for years, where most of his friends lived. New Jersey: where he grew up, where his parents lived. California: where his brother lived. He was willing to let the populations of those states—home to his family and friends—get sick and die to help his father-in-law’s re-election prospects.

Again: He was willing to let the populations of those states get sick and die to help his father-in-law’s re-election prospects.

As of this writing, 904,000 Americans have died of covid-19. The unofficial number is well over a million. Most of those deaths could have been prevented, had he and his father-in-law not sabotaged the pandemic response.

The grandson of Holocaust survivors allowed that mass death to happen.

...

if true...

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

I got my booster shot yesterday. Thus far just a mildly sore arm -- the same as for the first two. It should carry me through to the Summer at any rate.

[Gromnir]

Booster effectiveness wanes after 4 months, but showed sturdy protection against hospitalization, CDC study shows

“I honestly think we were unrealistic early on in conveying the idea that vaccine efficacy should be primarily characterized by protecting from infection,” Marrazzo wrote in an email. “As variants evolve and get better at infecting us, what we’ll need to focus on is mitigating the consequences.”

In a second study released Friday, CDC reviewed data from two of its vaccine safety monitoring systems. It found that those 18 and older who received the same mRNA vaccine for all their shots had fewer side effects after the booster than after their second dose.

...

am gonna observe we did not enjoy a couple o' days following our booster, which were near four months removed at this point, and we were moderna with all three doses. our post booster side effects were not particular terrible, and thanks to our shingles vaccination last year we got a new baseline for acceptable side effects. am literal unable to recall ~six-to-eight hours o' our life following the shingles vaccination other than a recognition o' much shivering and disorientation. so relative speaking, the covid-19 booster side effects were hardly noteworthy save to recognize they were flu-like and brief.  curiously, we have had negligible injection site discomfort for any o' the covid-19 shots and that is the most common side effect. 

in the linked neil de grasse videos, the astrophysicist laments why computer modeling cannot be used to predict vaccine effectiveness and side effects the way computers has become so effective at predicting the interactions o' extra-solar phenomena, but am thinking the physicist fails to recognize just how many variables there is to anticipate with medicine interactions, and there is no baseline human which provides a useful model for any kinda computer modeling. gonna be stuck with human testing for a long time and will be unsurprising when two seeming similar people have very different experiences with protean diseases such as covid-19 and the medications and vaccines meant to treat such ailments.

regardless, am not particular concerned with waning booster efficacy at the moment, but it is indeed an issue worth following, particular if/when a new variant emerges.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Getting my booster shot tomorrow. Moderna this time (my first two shots were BioNTech/Pfizer). It's a matter of convenience to be honest, as I can get Moderna 15 minutes from where I live. If I wanted Pfizer, I would have to travel to the other side of Brisbane, across the river and spending hours in transit. I do like joking about mixing shots makes the effects more pronounced though.

As for side effects, the only vaccine to almost kill me was the smallpox vaccine I got as a small kid, which ended me up in ICU in hospital. Never had anything even remotely like it since (actually, didn't really have much in the way of vaccinations after the age of 7 come to think of it). Whooping cough (a combo shot, combined with diphtheria and tetanus) last year, together with covid are about the only vaccines received as an adult

 

Edit: The whooping cough because friends of mine had a newborn last year and I wanted to hang out with them.

 

Edit2: If I'm not around tomorrow afternoon, I want my ashes spread over the ocean

[Zoraptor]

My booster gave me a dead arm. The 2nd shot was worse, since that actually made me feel outright ill for a day. I almost always get some odd immediate interactions from injections too, with the booster I got a feeling as if my hand was wrapped in ice for a couple of minutes.

Having had 'long flu' before though any minor inconveniences from vaccines are just that. A sore arm and a bit of a headache is nothing compared to that mass of completely random ailments; 'favourite' being the random feeling that my skin was shrinking that I got for literally months on end. You knew perfectly well it wasn't, but that didn't stop the feeling of it. Oh yeah, and my caffeine tolerance got randomly reset so even as single cup of coffee could have me bouncing off the walls. Needless to say I've had a flu jab every year since except the last one as there was no flu in NZ last year.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I've had three shots of Pfizer. Same with my girlfriend. No reactions at all.

[Keyrock]

I had one J&J shot nearly a year ago, no boosters, no plan to get a booster. They've lied to us The science has changed so many times that I don't believe a single word out of Fauci's mouth at this point.

[Gromnir]

a scientist is gonna change advice when data changes. is zealots who is gonna keep repeating the same stoopid claims in spite of changing data is the problem.

there has been good advice from the scientists which hasn't changed from day 1. mask advice, one o' the conspiracy theorist bugaboos, changed with the data and circumstances.  there were almost no n95 masks available to americans 'cause we had sent what supply o' them we did have to china and 'cause the trump administration had ignored pleas from the lone US producer that a serious increase in supply was warranted. the trump administration also halted development on specialized rapid production prototypes back in 2018. US spent millions (cheap in retrospect) developing technologies to confront pandemics with increased n95 production as one means o' improving american safety, but w/o an immediate threat of a pandemic, the trump administration killed funding... which is the kinda myopia which plagued previous administrations as well. 

not the scientists who screwed the pooch, but politicians.

and yeah, before asymptomatic spread was understood, and in the absence o' n95s which were needed for healthcare workers, scientists said there weren't much value in mask wearing back when the pandemic started. 'course once asymptomatic spread were understood, the scientists changed advice regarding even cloth masks.

what is the other concerns? that new variants has resulted in new mitigation advice? such isn't 'cause scientists lied but rather 'cause most americans didn't understand realities. the neil de grasse tyson video we linked, the first one from october 2020, is particular useful in reviewing how some o' the current misconceptions 'bout scientist flip-flops is more a matter o' skeevy politicians exploiting the science ignorance o' the public as 'posed to actual changing advice from the science guys, who always qualified their advice and recognized that new variants would result in new challenges, which is why they keep telling us there is never gonna be natural herd immunity and why vaccines is so important.

etc.

*shrug*

science don't change 'cause science is nothing but a method. scientific advice should change because if you change the data, real scientists, using the method, is gonna often end up with new advice. is the zealots of whom you need be watchful.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Gromnir
added "." after 2018

[ShadySands]

I'm J&J and Moderna. My booster wasn't that bad, beyond injection site soreness I just had some tiredness.

My wife is Pfizer and Moderna and she had it a little worse than I did. Not as tired but for an additional day or two

[Keyrock]

I just find it hilarious how so many people are blindly taking the claims of Big Pharma, and Pfizer in particular, at face value and parroting, verbatim in some cases of the corporate press, everything they say. What a reputable company with a sterling reputation that Pfizer, they never steered us wrong before. 

Hey, remember the time they walked away from a deal to reduce to cost of AIDS medicine for poor countries? How about the time their hormone replacement drug was causing breast cancer? Or that time they ran trials of their drug during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria and purposely gave the control group lower than normal amounts of antibiotics to make their own drug look better, leading to several deaths.

I could go on, but that's all in the past, water under the bridge. I'm sure Pfizer is definitely completely on the up and up now. They would definitely not use this unique opportunity to make ludicrous amounts of money during a worldwide pandemic to squeeze out as much profit as possible. They definitely only have our best interests at heart and would never steer us wrong.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Keyrock said:

I just find it hilarious how so many people are blindly taking the claims of Big Pharma, and Pfizer in particular, at face value and parroting, verbatim in some cases of the corporate press, everything they say. What a reputable company with a sterling reputation that Pfizer, they never steered us wrong before. 

 

which is why so many people were concerned when the previous administration were trying to rush the approval process for the vaccines, 'stead of letting the scientists fully analyze the data.  'course after the fact is not as if big pharma is able to adjust the case, hospitalization and death rates; there has been considerable opportunity to check the actual performance o' vaccines... or is the theory that big pharma is also messing with those numbers as well, 'cause then you is getting into moon hoax level o' conspiracy, no? a conspiracy theory which involves the complicity o' a whole lotta folks in dozens o' countries makes it increasing less likely, or at least it should.

we wouldn't doubt that the vaccine manufacturers did what they could with their internal testing results to make their vaccines appear as efficacious as possible, but am doubting what you are referencing is some kinda quibble over % points.  instead you offer vague notions o' corporate greed, something nobody would deny is an issue, as an explanation for... what exactly? 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 13, 2022 by Gromnir
punctuation fail

[Bartimaeus]

2 hours ago, Keyrock said:

I just find it hilarious how so many people are blindly taking the claims of Big Pharma, and Pfizer in particular, at face value and parroting, verbatim in some cases of the corporate press, everything they say. What a reputable company with a sterling reputation that Pfizer, they never steered us wrong before. 

Hey, remember the time they walked away from a deal to reduce to cost of AIDS medicine for poor countries? How about the time their hormone replacement drug was causing breast cancer? Or that time they ran trials of their drug during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria and purposely gave the control group lower than normal amounts of antibiotics to make their own drug look better, leading to several deaths.

I could go on, but that's all in the past, water under the bridge. I'm sure Pfizer is definitely completely on the up and up now. They would definitely not use this unique opportunity to make ludicrous amounts of money during a worldwide pandemic to squeeze out as much profit as possible. They definitely only have our best interests at heart and would never steer us wrong.

I don't think most normal people care an iota what Pfizer says in of itself - Pfizer's a corporation looking out for its bottom line, just like 99.9% of all corporations. But if you distrust the corporation, and you distrust the CDC, and you are presumably not listening to any other country's disease-presiding institution or accepting studies done by any of them or anyone else on their behalf, where are you looking to for information that would impact your decision?