Coronavirus, Covid 19 Discussion and How It Has Affected Your Daily Life Chat Thread

[KarynVA]

And I think we're all aware by now that the elites, or at least those who consider themselves such, are doing whatever they darn well please. "Rules for thee but not for me."

Hypocrisy is human nature and occurs in all socio-economic groups. Resentment of "elites" is childish and is against one's own self-interest when it comes to avoiding a contagious and deadly virus.

Not to mention, wealthy folks can afford to take risks because they have plenty of money to pay for exclusive treatments not available to the majority of folks who can't pay for those medicines. That doesn't make it right, but it's likely the way wealthy folks think about it.

 

[ChocolateMouse]

I think we're talking past each other. I asked for feedback about those statements as stand-alone facts. Can someone be pro-vaxx generally and not confident in these vaccines, specifically? That's a yes or no response. You went far wide and introduced many other topics: motivation, demographics, etc.

I was trying to keep things simple so we could get clarity on that one point. If agreement can't be reached, clarity is the next best goal, in my opinion. You get clarity and can move on from there. But sometimes it doesn't happen.



What?? Why would someone would limit their health options by deferring to the FDA?

I don't think you understand. YES someone can be pro-vaccine and against this vaccine.
Hypocritical people CAN exist for a myriad of reasons. That doesn't mean their reasons are good, or change the fact that their actions can negatively effect other peoples lives.


As for the other ..........Uh. Most of the time it's not even LEGAL for doctors to prescribe outside that.
Look, I'm all for a certain amount of pushback against regulatory issues, especially in times of need. FDA doesn't approve things for stupid reasons sometimes and some pressure is needed. They even approved HCQ for a while there even though it was high risk. But there's a LOT of questions about all these experimental treatments. Some of the follow up studies have shown no improvement in COVID, some of the studies have shown deterioration, some have shown improvement, some have shown improvement - but in cells at doses much higher than humans can take in a lab. Some like this one were only 16 people for 4 weeks and didn't even have a single control, they just said "we gave 16 people the drug and they got better the end". It's very up in the air. It's one thing if you're dying. It's another if you're healthy and put your faith in something that may or may not work and go on as if it does work.
Because what if it doesn't?
What if it works but much less than expected?
Who's responsible then?
The person who put out the incorrect study in another country?
The doctor who said yes?
Someone who told the patient about it?
The person who didn't wear a mask?
The person who made the choice to rely on the experimental treatment?

Usually it's the last one and then we're back at square one. If someone relied on something that didn't actually work and wasn't proven it's their own fault. So why would anyone RELY on that to protect themselves when they have no way of being sure it would work? Even if you were taking it to try to protect yourself, unless you have definitive results you would still want other people wearing masks in case it didn't because you can't be sure.

Experimental treatments that have the potential to have serious negative consequences are not a fair option to suggest that majority of the population RELY ON. Use? Maybe. Sure even, especially if the consequences are low (ivermectin is PROBABLY fine but maybe not HCQ that has serious side effects). But RELY ON? Not really IMO. You're just asking people to take the blame for getting a preventable illness by using a treatment they don't even know for sure works.

Interestingly I saw there's a number of studies on ivermectin in the USA happening right now.
But there's also a huge shortage of drug trial participants causing it to go slow.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04602507
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30460-4/fulltext
https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/28/recruitment-retention-silent-crises-clinical-trials/
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200702.963588/full/

If you're passionate about it, you should look into drug trials in your area and sign up for them! We could use the info! I'll be excited if it works and if it does and costs pennies, GREAT! But until we KNOW we can rely on it, we SHOULDN'T rely on it.

 

[RebeccaRN]

And I think we're all aware by now that the elites, or at least those who consider themselves such, are doing whatever they darn well please. "Rules for thee but not for me."

I have noticed the governors of both Cali and NY have been caught out not wearing masks and in large gatherings so either they don't believe in their own mandates or they just don't care.

 

[ChocolateMouse]

Probably the latter TBH. :/ Lotsa folks don't.

 

[RebeccaRN]

Probably the latter TBH. :/ Lotsa folks don't.

Its scary because I'm sure to some their actions are saying you don't have to take this seriously. How many people will die following their examples...none that they will take responsibility for im sure

 

[EmmaDonovan]

YES someone can be pro-vaccine and against this vaccine. Hypocritical people CAN exist for a myriad of reasons.

Okay. I said you can be pro-vaxx generally and not confident in these vaccines. That's twice now you've changed "not confident" to "against." Do you see how those aren't the same thing?

"You can be pro-vaxx generally and not confident in these vaccines." What about that is hypocritical?

If you're passionate about it, you should look into drug trials

Can you think of any additional areas you would research if you're passionate about prevention and treatment?

unless you have definitive results

What's your rubric for "definitive results?" Is it "the FDA said so?" Or something else?

 

[ChocolateMouse]

Its scary because I'm sure to some their actions are saying you don't have to take this seriously

I agree whole heartedly. I know I don't go out much, but it's not that hard to remember your mask. We have one spot for them by the dog treats near the door and one in the car. Clean disposable ones in the cabinet upstairs... We always have spares too.
As public figures, it upsets me to see that they're neglecting it. These people have whole arse secretaries monitoring their behavior to make sure they don't forget stuff. Whole teams even. What's the excuse? >( Rich people gonna rich I guess.

Psst. Eat them.

 

[RebeccaRN]

When the people in charge of these big cities, that have been locked down to the point of permanently disabling the livelihoods of many ,are not following their own rules it sure makes it seem that maybe they know something we don't. It's their fault people won't take Covid seriously.

 

[Winter Creek Coop]

When the people in charge of these big cities, that have been locked down to the point of permanently disabling the livelihoods of many ,are not following their own rules it sure makes it seem that maybe they know something we don't. It's their fault people won't take Covid seriously.

“Some animals are more equal than others.”

 

[ChocolateMouse]

Okay. I said you can be pro-vaxx generally and not confident in these vaccines. That's twice now you've changed "not confident" to "against." Do you see how those aren't the same thing?

"You can be pro-vaxx generally and not confident in these vaccines." What about that is hypocritical?



Can you think of any additional areas you would research if you're passionate about prevention and treatment?



What's your rubric for "definitive results?" Is it "the FDA said so?" Or something else?

Ok, sure I'll play yes it can happen.

I can! I would love to see a national contact tracing app for example. More development than research but still good. I'd like to see cell testing for other antivirals on the market, starting with the safest and ones effective against adjacent conditions (there's too many here to list). Since the HCQ effectiveness study got withdrawn I would like to see limited trials begun again to test efficacy just to clear it all up. I would like to see development of a more standardized vaccine that creates a longer term immunity to the virus. I want a vaccine that can be given especially to children to grant lifetime immunity. I also wanna see testing results for children for the existing vaccines but I know those trials are underway. I wanna see what the post mRNA vaccine transmission rates for the virus are, if any. Most estimates say the pfeizer vaccine is 80% sterile but we just don't know yet. And I want to see the existing vaccine have followup testing for other racial demographics and if it really is less effective I'd like to see research into why and how it can be fixed.
And that's just off the top of my head. I'm not even an immunologist. I expect they'd have different priorities.

Definitive results would be multiple peer reviewed studies and trials with repeatable results, preferably presentable internationally and double blind with a moderate but diverse sample size. For example, if a single company were to test a drug on 200 people in 5 different countries that would easily convince me, or if 3 totally independent groups did the same study on 50 people each in 3 countries without collaborating I could take it seriously. It's all about sample size/number of independent groups doing and overseeing the research. If you can't repeat the results by following the same instructions, it's not science.
(The study I posted is doing 100, 50 control 50 test. Which is fine and would let it move into phase 3 which I think have bigger limits.)

For example, preliminary results for the COVID vaccine and new strains of COVID have charted the same immune response. They've also been VERY VERY limited in scope. I'm hopeful that they work out. But I'm also waiting on bigger responses before I say anything more than "be hopeful".