Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 668695 times)

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4250 on: January 26, 2022, 09:20:38 AM »
I'm one.  I'd rather he just play (or retire in his case) instead of commenting on anything outside of football (though this is arguably something any football player could legitimately comment on, particularly if they are asked since it *is* about them.)  Especially if he starts interrupting pieces of the games.

But you make a good point about being consistent and having actual integrity.  Most people are far too willing to throw everything they SAY they stand for out the window when the shoe is on the other foot.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4251 on: January 26, 2022, 09:36:33 AM »
I am for that.  I am not saying he should be quiet.  Athletes are allowed to have opinions about things that affect their lives and when they are put on pedestals, people get to listen.

I just find it interesting that when a black man does a silent protest that does not violate any laws of the country or the rules of the game, he gets cancelled. But when a white player violates league rules not much happens to him.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4252 on: January 26, 2022, 11:55:29 AM »
I think you're missing the fact that Aaron Rodgers is an elite quarterback, Kaepernick when he got canned just finished a 1-10 season as a starter and ranked 26th and 29th in completion percentage and passing yards. If Kaep had been a future hall of famer, they would have overlooked his notoriety. Or guaranteed some team would have. Nobody is going to eat up that kind of criticism for a mediocre backup. You think if Sam Darnold mouthed off about covid protocols and vaccines that he gets the same free pass?

It's always stupid, the "just shut up" crowd. Be quiet you're just an athlete/entertainer! Until one of them says something they agree with and then they turn into a conservative meme. The "just shut up" crowd apparently thinks that their job somehow qualifies them to speak long and hard. I'm not really sure why an athlete or entertainer has a less valid political voice than truck drivers.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4253 on: January 26, 2022, 12:37:38 PM »
I think that they are portrayed as having a "more important" voice than the typical person, which isn't true, but they do have a much louder voice and they *are* influencers.  People idolize idols.  It's how Michael Jordan sneakers sell, and it's why I have a signed helmet from Pat Mahomes four feet away from where I'm typing this.

And there is something to that argument: That for the very reason that they have such a big soap box to stand on, they ought to use it for what they believe is a noble cause.  And that's part of why Kapernick did the things he did.  And I have a hard time arguing with that.  It's noble, and it can do some good in the world.

The counter argument, and I tend to lean this way, is keep the thing, whatever it is....a football game, a baseball game, a concert, an award show.....keep it in the context of what it is.  I don't give a damn at all what any musician has to say about politics, or about football, or baseball, or China.  If Taylor Swift stopped her concert to talk about the overtime coin flip rule in football, it'd be considered ridiculous.  If Ben Afleck started talking about the music industries practices, I'd change channels, and when athletes start talkin to me about politics, it's a turn off.

There's a lot to be said for "stay in your lane" too.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4254 on: January 26, 2022, 12:46:04 PM »
Quote
It's always stupid, the "just shut up" crowd. Be quiet you're just an athlete/entertainer! Until one of them says something they agree with and then they turn into a conservative meme. The "just shut up" crowd apparently thinks that their job somehow qualifies them to speak long and hard. I'm not really sure why an athlete or entertainer has a less valid political voice than truck drivers

And the "listen to what THIS guy has to say about it" crowd disappears real fast when that guy says something they don't like.  Hypocrisy is on both sides and there is no lack of it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4255 on: January 26, 2022, 12:49:38 PM »
Quote
I don't give a damn at all what any musician has to say about politics

A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics? :)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4256 on: January 26, 2022, 01:58:04 PM »
I've always like what the Stoics had to say about taking offence. That it requires participation and a person doesn't have to play if they don't want to.  I apply the same rule with such - slow day 'celebrity news' crap.

We 'pay' attention to what those with a platform have to say because we want to. We like to talk about it. I suspect we even like to be offended by it for multiple reasons - unconscious bias maybe the biggest one.

The weight and value we give to such persons opinions has nothing to do with the person. That application of weight and value belongs to the individual.

Does anyone on this forum really care what Eric Clapton has to say about the covid? I suspect the only people who care are those that already think the same things and or those that find some pleasurer in being 'outraged' and upset.

Sure anyone lacking the skills of discernment might be overly influenced by his comments but my bet is that such people are already in the choir. 

When it comes to music a person enjoys and spend money to listen to... a song with a political message you don't already agree with is probably not going to make the list. That doesn't mean the artist  with the 'platform' has any more authority as any other joe on subjects they don't work in.   

When it comes to knowledge how much time should a person invest in those saying thing with little to back up thier claims. 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2022, 02:04:30 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4257 on: January 26, 2022, 02:06:04 PM »
Heh, I had to look up his views. I suspect that the "mass psychosis" folks don't want him to shut up. As you say. I don't think anyone on this forum would cite him though.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4258 on: January 26, 2022, 07:35:10 PM »
Love me some Clapton but I'm unaware of his political views, which is as it should be. Assuming they're anti-establishment, I hope there's not a petition to remove his content from Spotify too. Not that his estate would care much at this point.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4259 on: January 26, 2022, 08:47:10 PM »
Quote
A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4260 on: January 26, 2022, 08:54:56 PM »
Quote
A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

Granted I don't listen to pop music playing now, but it's very easy to find plenty of groups writing music with political overtones or outright statements going back. Pink Floyd's The Wall comes to mind immediately, and several genres including punk, ska, metal, rap, and others are very clearly political by their very nature, even if the song's literal lyrics are about something else. You have to consider that the very texture of some genres, and the overtones in their material, is meant to directly be a backlash against 'the system'. Nine Inch Nails, Marylin Manson, and other such as this channel some of the downer vibes, others like punk can be more upbeat. They're not political punditry, backing some party or candidate; they're political in the proper sense of the term, meaning being about human social interactions and how those are represented systemically and in the authority structure. And then you have the other kind of social political commentary, like glam rock, some country, and some other kinds of metal, which are about how people present in society, how they're seen vis a vis 'society', and the pressures put on them to be a certain way. This is all political, some of it very contentious. So I think when Seriati is talking about banning political speech he means the sorts of social commentaries, statements of value, and even pushback against authority that these genres encompass. I don't think he meant people talking about C-SPAN.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4261 on: January 26, 2022, 09:25:57 PM »
Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?
Officially called "God Bless the U.S.A."  Don't be pandering to the vast radical-Marxist secular conspiracy to remove god from the title!

"And I'm proud to be an American \\
Where at least I know I'm free"

Can't hear that lyric without reaching for my blue pencil.  Or my red one, indeed.  English teachers everywhere sobbing about long-lost referents...

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4262 on: January 26, 2022, 10:25:59 PM »
Love me some Clapton but I'm unaware of his political views, which is as it should be. Assuming they're anti-establishment, I hope there's not a petition to remove his content from Spotify too. Not that his estate would care much at this point.
He's not been especially politically active that I'm aware of, but if I were to make a hot take on his political stance over time, it'd be on the lines of, drug-addled racist rocker turned conspiracy-theorist member of the squirarchy.  So depends how you're defining "the establishment", which everyone has their own take on these days.

Heh, I had to look up his views. I suspect that the "mass psychosis" folks don't want him to shut up. As you say. I don't think anyone on this forum would cite him though.
Does seem like the sort of source that if you were influenced by, you'd rather want to launder that by upgrading to a slightly fancier version.  Or do the "I'm hearing that" or "everyone's telling me..." thing.

It's how Michael Jordan sneakers sell, and it's why I have a signed helmet from Pat Mahomes four feet away from where I'm typing this.
How bout them Chieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefs.  (Though for the record I'm a recovering Bears fan.)

I'm one.  I'd rather he just play (or retire in his case) instead of commenting on anything outside of football (though this is arguably something any football player could legitimately comment on, particularly if they are asked since it *is* about them.) 
He was indeed asked in with his "day job" (woolly green bobble) hat on.  In a sense it's a legit question, as the league has different rules for the differently coviddy.  And clearly it puts him in an awkward position as if he refuses to answer it, we're immediately in the Novak Djokovic zone of smelling a rat, if he answers it truthfully there goes his medical privacy, and if he lies then he's a liar.  Or worse, he tries a "I'm the cleverest guy in the room" sort of answer, and it turns out he wasn't.

But when he starts banging on about the "fake White House" and scoffing that "it does look like" Biden got 81m votes, that's an unforced error.  To slightly mix sporting metaphors.  Obviously he's free to speak out what whatever he wants to, but whether he's wise to do so is another matter.  Then again, FL has three handegg teams, maybe one of them, perhaps one with an extremely old fly-half, might be in the market in the future...

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4263 on: January 27, 2022, 08:46:08 AM »
Quote
They're not political punditry

That was the word I was looking for, thank you.  That was the difference that I couldn't articulate.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4264 on: January 27, 2022, 11:03:59 AM »
Quote
A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

The Beatles. Bob Dylan. Crosby Stills Nash & Young. U2. Public Enemy. Now, not every song by them is political, but they have political songs.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4265 on: January 27, 2022, 11:06:59 AM »
Quote
A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

The Beatles. Bob Dylan. Crosby Stills Nash & Young. U2. Public Enemy. Now, not every song by them is political, but they have political songs.

This is a fact. It was common to have anti-establishment narratives in popular music. Not so much anymore.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4266 on: January 27, 2022, 11:17:18 AM »
I think it is more a reflection of the fact that I don't know much current music.

A brief amount of research turns up 22 BLM Protest Anthems

Beyonce, Victoria Monet, Ariana Grande, Lauryn Hill, Janelle Monae

15 LGBTQ Protest Songs

Pet Shop Boys, Melissa Etheridge, Pussy Riot

13 Anti-trump songs

Carole King, Tribe Called Quest, Fiona Apple

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4267 on: January 27, 2022, 11:26:35 AM »
Lol. Is the establishment anti-BLM and anti-LGBT? Just because you agree with the cause doesn't mean it's not the establishment. That, or someone needs to tell Apple, Starbucks and every other major corporation inside silicon valley that they're apparently counter-culture now.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4268 on: January 27, 2022, 11:31:39 AM »
Who said anything about establishment versus not? That was your red herring. My statement was that politics and art are inextricably linked.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4269 on: January 27, 2022, 11:37:37 AM »
Who said anything about establishment versus not? That was your red herring. My statement was that politics and art are inextricably linked.

Ok. Your reply seemed to be a direct response to my comment about anti-establishment.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4270 on: January 27, 2022, 11:54:34 AM »
If the "establishment" were pro-BLM, the police would have actually been defunded somewhere. Putting up a statement in stark black and white text doesn't actually make an organization pro-BLM.

Parts of the establishment are definitely still hostile to queer people. Just because corporations want our money now doesn't mean that the struggle is over.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4271 on: January 27, 2022, 12:02:29 PM »
Newsflash!!!

Police departments were defunded in alot of places.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4272 on: January 27, 2022, 12:06:25 PM »
And then quickly re-funded when it became apparent the cure was drastically worse than the disease.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4273 on: January 27, 2022, 12:28:16 PM »
'Defund the Police' the worst slogan ever - the  right are great at rallying behind slogans that are easily used against them.

I can just imagine the meeting:
What about 'Defund the Police'
- Great... What do we mean by that
Lots of things
- Should we be more specific about what we mean
naa people will know what we mean, even if were not sure. How could it go wrong
- Right silly me

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4274 on: January 27, 2022, 01:49:20 PM »
Which ones were defunded and then refunded?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4275 on: January 27, 2022, 01:55:48 PM »
Quick google and it looks like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore and have reduced police spending. Not clear if that is due to defund the police or if that included a change in policing - moving the funding to address Mental health homeless issues away being policing issues.

As expected people hear reduced spending  as a all or nothing reaction without looking at the details

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4276 on: January 27, 2022, 02:02:20 PM »
So a quick google shows that police weren't defunded, as I said.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4277 on: January 27, 2022, 03:07:20 PM »
Quote
Austin, Texas, is the latest city to announce a police defunding effort, with the City Council on Thursday voting unanimously to cut $150 million (roughly one third) from the police budget, reinvesting much of that sum in social programs, including food access, violence prevention and abortion access.

Austin’s announcement closely follows the sweeping budget change approved by Seattle—a $3.5 million budget cut and the reinvestment of over $17 million—that resulted in the resignation of Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, a 28-year veteran of the department and Seattle’s first Black police leader.

The country’s two largest cities, New York and Los Angeles, approved budget cuts weeks after protests began—New York slashed $1 billion from its 2021 budget totaling $88.9 billion (reallocating $354 million to mental health, homelessness and education services) while Los Angeles approved a $150 million budget cut from its $1.86 billion proposed budget.

Also in California, San Francisco approved a $120 million cut to the police and sheriff’s department, promising investments in Black residents, and Oakland passed its own $14.6 million budget reduction.

A $15 million police budget cut also hit the nation’s capital, Washington D.C., in July, where the Defund the Police movement has become a hot button issue in the run-up to the 2020 election, with President Trump erroneously accusing competitor Joe Biden of supporting closing police departments.

Baltimore eliminated roughly $22 million from its police budget; Portland, Oregon, cut nearly $16 million; Philadelphia reduced police funding by $33 million; Hartford, Conn. cut $1 million from its $40 million budget; Norman, Oklahoma slashed $865,000; and Salt Lake City reduced its police budget by $5.3 from that previously proposed by the mayor.

Is your argument that anything short of elimination of the police department counts as "Defunding the Police"?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4278 on: January 27, 2022, 03:12:59 PM »
a tangent on a tangent, what is that a subtangent or a hypertangent?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4279 on: January 27, 2022, 03:15:50 PM »
Is your argument that anything short of elimination of the police department counts as "Defunding the Police"?

That would be BLM's argument, yes.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4280 on: January 27, 2022, 04:11:30 PM »
I'm beginning to think that all the fervent religious folks wanting Jesus to heal their unvaxxed selves actually are hoping that Covid will send them to the kingdom of heaven ahead of schedule. Hopefully for them St. Peter isn't asking for proof of vaccination.

Seriously, though, I wonder how much a belief in an afterlife - any afterlife - might impact the "I'm not afraid" bunch. Well, if Jesus calls me home at least I'll get to see Mom again!

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4281 on: January 27, 2022, 04:34:15 PM »
I'm beginning to think that all the fervent religious folks wanting Jesus to heal their unvaxxed selves actually are hoping that Covid will send them to the kingdom of heaven ahead of schedule. Hopefully for them St. Peter isn't asking for proof of vaccination.

Seriously, though, I wonder how much a belief in an afterlife - any afterlife - might impact the "I'm not afraid" bunch. Well, if Jesus calls me home at least I'll get to see Mom again!

I think you have to break that down more level - how much a belief in after life and 'miracles' not involving medical science...  Not accepting help because god doesn't need help or work through others... unless he does (the 'correct' people need only apply, unless god is working through the unbeliever to bring about his plan... it gets confusing )   

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4282 on: January 27, 2022, 04:58:55 PM »
Lots of people have irrational beliefs and then apply those beliefs to irrational actions.

For example, a significant portion of the population believes that you have a 50% chance of being hospitalized if you get covid and they behave as if those beliefs were true. I've met a few of those. I've yet to meet anyone who claims they're invincible, or that Jesus will protect them from covid but it's a big world so I don't doubt they're out there.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4283 on: January 27, 2022, 05:07:59 PM »
I'm just saying that I'm curious about the apparent correlation between religious faith and anti-vax sentiment. We've already covered the whole hospitalization and outcome beliefs and how that correlates with getting a vaccine.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4284 on: January 27, 2022, 05:38:41 PM »
Anti-vax or anti mandate? It matters which we're talking about. There's probably a direct correlation between religiosity and anti-vax sentiment. I suspect that correlation gets really thin when it gets to anti-mandate views but don't have any data to back that hunch.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4285 on: January 27, 2022, 05:53:38 PM »
In this case, I'm talking about anti-vax. Meaning the particular sentiment of:

meme suggesting that you shouldn't trust vaccine because you trust jesus instead

Remember its not the shot or the mask keeping us alive, it's God almighty.

I don't know how common these are, but they are definitely out there and legitimate.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4286 on: January 27, 2022, 08:53:43 PM »
For example, a significant portion of the population believes that you have a 50% chance of being hospitalized if you get covid and they behave as if those beliefs were true.
A significant portion of your posts reiterate that first talking point.  If "believe" means "guess when asked", then I recommend you don't watch any quiz shows, or you'll lose any remaining faith you might have in humanity.

The second is a blatant overreach.  Gallup didn't ask those people if they were the same ones enraging you -- sorry, no, eliciting your deep sympathy! -- by wearing masks outdoors, etc.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4287 on: January 27, 2022, 08:56:17 PM »
I'm just saying that I'm curious about the apparent correlation between religious faith and anti-vax sentiment. We've already covered the whole hospitalization and outcome beliefs and how that correlates with getting a vaccine.

You'll probably see a better connection between conservative vs liberal type people, or more specifically people who fall in certain ways on the big 5 (or other such evaluation systems). It's probably got a big genetic component, which I doubt very much religion has (we are all mentally wired up for religion). I know that some rather conservative religious groups seem to resist vaccination, but they also resist a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with illnesses. Likewise, I think you'd probably find a lot of anti-vax in the spiritual/granola/organic group, which is highly left-wing socially and politically, and yet 'conservative' in certain ways insomuch as they are very intolerant of things that interfere with their bubble and are very careful about what they eat, etc. And while you'd hardly call this latter group religious formally speaking, they share the trait of having unusually strong beliefs about esoteric things, and clinging to it as a way of life. So your suggestion is, I think, narrowing too much and on the wrong axis.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4288 on: January 27, 2022, 09:12:00 PM »
Anti-vax or anti mandate? It matters which we're talking about. There's probably a direct correlation between religiosity and anti-vax sentiment. I suspect that correlation gets really thin when it gets to anti-mandate views but don't have any data to back that hunch.
If there were any logical consistency, the "we'd like a Christian theocracy, please" people wouldn't have any issue with the "mandating things" aspect, and that angle might be more associated with people that see themselves as more Libertarian, "small-government", and so on.

In practice people's beliefs are such a mishmash that I'd guess that the correlations are likely going to be less than the noise, beyond it being seen as a rather broadly partisan thing.

Likewise, I think you'd probably find a lot of anti-vax in the spiritual/granola/organic group, which is highly left-wing socially and politically, and yet 'conservative' in certain ways insomuch as they are very intolerant of things that interfere with their bubble and are very careful about what they eat, etc.
Definitely.  Though that association is getting weirder too.  These days you can be a vegan and a right-wing ethno-nationalist -- not even that original, that one, at the risk of Godwinning myself -- or a Capitol-storming organic-food neo-animist by religion.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4289 on: January 30, 2022, 09:40:44 PM »
Good read.

Quote
Spike proteins could attach themselves to different cells and tissues, for instance muscle tissue, joints, heart, lungs, nerves, kidneys, intestines, brain, etc. Spike proteins by themselves can cause damage, and the outcome could be even worse if and when inflammatory substances recognize those cells as foreign and attack. This leads to muscle pain, joint pain, changes in heart rate, shortness of breath, ringing in the ears, dizziness or strange nerve sensations, and a host of symptoms that I discuss in detail -- along with my thoughts on spike protein shedding or transmission -- at Covid Vaccine Side Effects.

Quote
There are cases of delayed, or ongoing, immune responses such as skin rashes, hives, joint pains, cardiac and blood pressure problems, fatigue, and a variety of neurological issues that start a week or two later. I am now reading case reports of people having persistent health issues several months post vaccine (I recently met someone who is having heart rhythm disturbances 10 months after). Adverse reactions are often more intense after the second dose and having had a recent Covid-19 infection

Quote
This article is a work in progress and I frequently update it as I learn more. Trying to make sense of this complicated process is humbling. I am not sure if anyone on the planet completely understands in molecular detail what exactly is going on with these new shots; and furthermore has connected the dots to the clinical signs and symptoms that certain vaccinated people are experiencing. I have a strong urge to solve at least part of the puzzle.

Quote
The public who follows mainstream news has been sold a fairy tale. In order for a vaccine to have a chance at helping achieve herd immunity it should be very safe, prevent the vaccinated from transmitting the virus to others, and be at least 80% effective for a period lasting several years or a lifetime. The current ones fall dismally short of these standards.

Quote
The CDC announced in August that the vaccinated transmit the virus just as easily as the unvaxed. Therefore it is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and frankly not supported by scientific evidence to bully and blame the unvaccinated for failure to achieve herd immunity. Viruses will mutate in the unvaccinated, they will mutate in those who are immune compromised, they will mutate in the vaccinated, and they will continue to mutate unless we eradicate them completely which is not achievable anytime soon through the currently-implemented strategies. Tens of thousands of people in the United States die from the flu virus each year, yet the seasonal mutations are not blamed on those who forgo the annual flu shot. People who truly believe these current vaccines provide excellent protection should, by their logic, not be overly concerned being around others who choose to decline the needle. If the vaccines are effective as claimed, why are the CDC and the WHO recommending masks to be worn indoors -- and third or fourth booster shots? Some of the highest vaccinated countries in the world -- for instance the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Seychelles, Chile, Israel, Malta, and others -- have not been able to suppress the rate of new infections.

Quote
We all have different reasons for getting these shots, or deciding not to (at least for the time being). We should hold no judgment against anyone who has been vaccinated or who wants to wait for additional safety and efficacy studies. Or, perhaps, wait for an improved second generation vaccine that protects against the new variants and is safer.

I wish you all stay safe. In these challenging times let us all empathically support each other to make the best of our situation no matter what our opinions.

There's a lot more in the link if these quotes seem out of context.  I recommend the read to everyone, particularly anyone with the sort of background that can verify his thoughts or perhaps find fault in them.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4290 on: January 31, 2022, 03:20:11 AM »
...

Responding to each quote without double quoting...

Quote
Spike proteins could attach themselves to different cells and tissues, for instance muscle tissue, joints, heart, lungs, nerves, kidneys, intestines, brain, etc.

mRNA vaccines work by entering the cell and that cell then produces copies of the spike protein - there is no spike protein produced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines outside of cells.  The spike protein never leaves the cell that the vaccine enters.

The spike protein binds with ACE2 receptors so it can 'attach' itself to any cell with an ACE2 receptor, but only if it is outside the cell, whice the mRNA spike proteins never are.

Quote
Spike proteins by themselves can cause damage

Spike proteins can't produce any damage in and of themselves.

Quote
and the outcome could be even worse if and when inflammatory substances recognize those cells as foreign and attack.

"Inflammatory substances" the only thing in physiology that has a meaning close to that is cytokines, which don't interact at all with the spike protein.  Immune recognition of a foreign protein can lead to cytokine production.

Quote
This leads to muscle pain, joint pain, changes in heart rate, shortness of breath, ringing in the ears, dizziness or strange nerve sensations, and a host of symptoms that I discuss in detail -- along with my thoughts on spike protein shedding or transmission -- at Covid Vaccine Side Effects.

So lets look at his link,

Quote
Many who get the shots are having only minor side effects such as arm pain or light flu-like symptoms, and some have none. Others are having more serious reactions, especially after the second dose or after a prior Covid-19 infection. We are basically introducing toxins into our bodies (the spike proteins, polyethylene glycol (PEG), and other ingredients such as the lipid nanoparticles) and our immune system reacts by creating antibodies against them (good) and also launching inflammatory substances (not good).

What a complete moron.  It is literally impossible to produce antibodies without creating cytokines.  It isn't a 'bad thing' - it is always the response of the body to a novel antigen.  They do make you feel bad, but they aren't bad.

The "lipid nanoparticles" are literally just a shell of fat.  The body doesn't create antibodies to lipids.  There is a small amount of PEG, the body rarely creates antibodies to it, but even so they are fairly irrelevant.


Quote
There are cases of delayed, or ongoing, immune responses such as skin rashes, hives, joint pains, cardiac and blood pressure problems, fatigue, and a variety of neurological issues that start a week or two later. I am now reading case reports of people having persistent health issues several months post vaccine (I recently met someone who is having heart rhythm disturbances 10 months after). Adverse reactions are often more intense after the second dose and having had a recent Covid-19 infection

These likely have nothing to do with the vaccine.  There is a 2 week reporting window after a vaccine.  At 2 doses in one year.  That means a 1 in 13 chance that if they have an illness of any sort during that year - it will overlap with the reporting window.  At 211 million people fully vaccinated in the US that means of 16.2 million - if they had an illness during the year it would correspond by chance with their vaccination period.

Some of them will get it properly diagnosed as whatever illness it is, but the quacks will claim it is due to the vaccine.

Quote
This article is a work in progress and I frequently update it as I learn more. Trying to make sense of this complicated process is humbling. I am not sure if anyone on the planet completely understands in molecular detail what exactly is going on with these new shots; and furthermore has connected the dots to the clinical signs and symptoms that certain vaccinated people are experiencing. I have a strong urge to solve at least part of the puzzle.

He should first get some basic training in immunology so he doesn't make such bone head mistakes.   If he can't even understand absolute basics, he has no hope of 'solving the puzzle.

Quote
In order for a vaccine to have a chance at helping achieve herd immunity it should be very safe

Safety has zero to do with herd immunity.  Variolation (similar to vaccination using substance from pustules of the infected) had a 2-3% death rate (since small pox had a 30% death rate it was a vast improvement).

Quote
prevent the vaccinated from transmitting the virus to others

Nope it just has to reduce the rate of transmission.

Quote
and be at least 80% effective for a period lasting several years or a lifetime.

No again, completely lacks understanding of a basic topic.

Let us explain herd immunity 101.  Herd immunity is when Reffective (the effective transmission rate) drops below 1.  The percentage vaccinated + prior infected, needed to acquire herd immunity depends on

1) Ro - the base rate of transmission without any measures to prevent transmission.  Ro is somewhat fuzzy, since population density, local hygeine habits (hand washing, cough covering method, etc.), local social mores (loud talking, distance when talking, greeting methods such as hand shaking or kissing, indoor vs outdoor activity, group sizes) all impact the Ro.

2) Vaccine effectiveness (reduction in transmission, reduction in transmission time, etc.)

3) Percentage of population infected or vaccinated

The 80% was based on an Ro of 2-4, and a 96% vaccine effectiveness, they used the 'worst case' of 4 (which was the actual for Alpha).

The formula is

(1 - 1/4)* 100 /(96) * 100 = 78% (which was rounded to 80%)

However Ro of 4 was the pessimistic case for the original variant.  This is what the claims of herd immunity were based on, and it was true at the time that the vaccines were created and were initially distributed.  Had people in the US got vaccinated when they were first available, we would have had herd immunity for the original variant and Alpha variant.

The Ro for Delta was higher than the worse case for delta Ro = 5, but it also was capable of lingering in the nose longer and injected vaccines don't develop nasal antibodies as robustly.  It also had spike protein mutations that decreased the ability of antibodies to neutralize it (reducing effectiveness to 80%, but restorable to 96% by boosting)  Also Delta produced drastically more virus so it could overwhelm the antibodies resulting in breakthrough infections (1 in 5000 for the original variant; about 1 in 100 for the delta variant).

(1 - 1/5)* 100 /(80) * 100 = 100% if no third dose; but (1 - 1/5)* 100 /(80) * 100 = 83% with third dose.  So again about 80%.

Unfortunately Omicron has more mutations to the spike protein reducing current vaccine effectiveness - about 30-40% effective against infection (unboosted, boosted is about 70-75%); result in more breakthroughs and easier spread.  It also has a drastically shorter reproduction time so it spreads far faster since it infects people quickly.

The Ro for Omicron is reported as 7.

(1-1/7)* 100/(35) *100 = 245% if no third dose; but (1-1/7)* 100/(72.5) *100 = 118%

So the current vaccine and infections can't create herd immunity alone for Omicron.

However, other mitigation strategies, such as masking can reduce the Rt to the level for herd immunity.

So basically - he had no clue what he was talking about.

Quote
The CDC announced in August that the vaccinated transmit the virus just as easily as the unvaxed.

No they did not.  He completely misunderstood what the CDC said.  Here is from September,

Quote
The risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Early data suggest infections in fully vaccinated persons are more commonly observed with the Delta variant than with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, data show fully vaccinated persons are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Quote
Therefore it is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and frankly not supported by scientific evidence to bully and blame the unvaccinated for failure to achieve herd immunity.

It was entirely their fault for failure to achieve herd immunity from variants prior to Omicron.

Quote
Viruses will mutate in the unvaccinated, they will mutate in those who are immune compromised, they will mutate in the vaccinated, and they will continue to mutate unless we eradicate them completely which is not achievable anytime soon through the currently-implemented strategies.

While mutation occurs in vaccinated individuals, the rate of mutation is drastically slower since mutation rate is proportional to total amount of virus reproduction cycles which is drastically higher in the unvaccinated.  This is like saying 'Selena Williams and I both play tennis' or 'Wayne Gretsky and I can both shoot a hockey puck'.  Technically true but completely deceptive without further clarification.

Eradication or at least controlled and limited outbreaks is achievable with vaccination and masking.

Quote
Tens of thousands of people in the United States die from the flu virus each year, yet the seasonal mutations are not blamed on those who forgo the annual flu shot.

Each year the influenza strain that infected people for that year is wiped out by herd immunity.  We aren't getting new variants due to lack of vaccination.

Quote
People who truly believe these current vaccines provide excellent protection should, by their logic, not be overly concerned being around others who choose to decline the needle.

They provide excellent, but not perfect protection.  The protection is diminished vs Omicron.  Unvaccinated serve as a source of new variants, and there are people who have compromised immune systems which the unvaccinated endanger - and if viruses are transmitted to those with compromised immune systems they provide the highest risk of new variants.

Quote
If the vaccines are effective as claimed, why are the CDC and the WHO recommending masks to be worn indoors -- and third or fourth booster shots?

If he had any knowledge of the topic, then I wouldn't have needed to bother explaining the basics above.  Congratulations your knowledge of immunology and epidemiology now greatly exceeds that of the doctor who has been quoted here (not hard - since he appears to have close to no actual accurate knowledge of the topic as relates to COVID-19.  I definitely wouldn't want someone with such a poor grasp of the topic as my doctor).

Quote
Some of the highest vaccinated countries in the world -- for instance the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Seychelles, Chile, Israel, Malta, and others -- have not been able to suppress the rate of new infections.

UAE has 182 infections per 100,000 for the past 7 days, the USA has 1119 per 100,000 for the past 7 days (and the USA is likely a massive undercount).

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-arab-emirates/

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-states/

UAE has had 2,240 total deaths from COVID-19 ; the USA has had 883,000 total deaths from COVID-19.  At 1/33rd or so the US population - they have had about 1/400th the deaths.

https://www.google.com/search?q=uae+deaths+covid-19
 
Quote
We all have different reasons for getting these shots, or deciding not to (at least for the time being). We should hold no judgment against anyone who has been vaccinated or who wants to wait for additional safety and efficacy studies. Or, perhaps, wait for an improved second generation vaccine that protects against the new variants and is safer.

The vaccine is safe and there is no reason to think they are not.  The only items of concern are the same thing as if you caught COVID-19 but drastically less harmful.  We should certainly judge people who originate and spread vaccine disinformation harshly - I think yanking medical licenses for such blatant disinformation would be warranted when using ones medical license to give naive individuals the false belief that the individual is spreading scientifically or medically supported information.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 03:30:47 AM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4291 on: January 31, 2022, 09:48:03 AM »
Sorry you end up always playing goalie on this topic, LR. Thanks for your efforts.

Quote
Therefore it is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and frankly not supported by scientific evidence to bully and blame the unvaccinated for failure to achieve herd immunity.

It was entirely their fault for failure to achieve herd immunity from variants prior to Omicron.

I just wanted to comment on this part, though, because I think it's unfair to American unvaccinated people. The fact is that even if 100% of Americans had gotten vaccinated and the States locally had achieved herd immunity as of summer 2021, the variants almost certainly didn't originate there anyhow. Nothing Americans did or didn't do would help places like India, and unless travel bans were to be permanent strains like Omicron would come anyhow. So even in the best case compliance scenario Americans would have been 'safe' for a few months at best. So that's not really meaningful herd immunity, in the sense of 'we can get on with our lives now.' It seems a lot of the time that unvaccinated people are treated as the cause of all these problems, when in fact I'm not sure how meaningful in this timeline their actions really were. Maybe in some alternate reality where no worse variants would emerge you could say the unvaccinated are the reason the virus is still around. In this reality North Americans probably had relatively little to so with the global covid situation.

Quote
Eradication or at least controlled and limited outbreaks is achievable with vaccination and masking.

Maybe that was true last year, but I think masking and vaccination do little at this point compared with social distancing. From what I've seen, if you're near someone with Omicron, unless you have cherry's hazmat suit you're getting it. Maybe it will be a less severe case but you're getting it. Keeping away from people is the only way to avoid spread.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4292 on: January 31, 2022, 10:17:58 AM »
I always go to a retired herbalist with an aol email address for all my complex molecular biology needs.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4293 on: January 31, 2022, 10:37:56 AM »
Quote
We should certainly judge people who originate and spread vaccine disinformation harshly - I think yanking medical licenses for such blatant disinformation would be warranted when using ones medical license to give naive individuals the false belief that the individual is spreading scientifically or medically supported information.

The author has as much credibility as you do, LetterRip.  He's providing his opinion based on his education and using his own intelligence...just like you are.  Just because he's coming to different conclusions doesn't make it misinformation, or him a moron.  Tossing out insults like that doesn't make me believe you more. 

Have you ever considered there's a chance there is something about the subject you don't know?  Or are wrong about?  Have you just considered it?

No.  "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, yank his medical license".  What an ego you have.

Quote
These likely have nothing to do with the vaccine.  There is a 2 week reporting window after a vaccine.  At 2 doses in one year.  That means a 1 in 13 chance that if they have an illness of any sort during that year - it will overlap with the reporting window.  At 211 million people fully vaccinated in the US that means of 16.2 million - if they had an illness during the year it would correspond by chance with their vaccination period.

Some of them will get it properly diagnosed as whatever illness it is, but the quacks will claim it is due to the vaccine.

Once again your whole argument is: - The vaccine is safe.  Any evidence to the contrary *must* be misinformation from morons or quacks, because it's safe.  You don't see the circular logic here?   You are making yourself less and less credible about this, despite lengthy and long worded posts.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4294 on: January 31, 2022, 11:30:07 AM »
Quote
This article is a work in progress and I frequently update it as I learn more. Trying to make sense of this complicated process is humbling. I am not sure if anyone on the planet completely understands in molecular detail what exactly is going on with these new shots; and furthermore has connected the dots to the clinical signs and symptoms that certain vaccinated people are experiencing. I have a strong urge to solve at least part of the puzzle.

I don't find arguments of the form "I don't understand this so no one else does other" to be particularly convincing or helpful to the credibility of the author.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4295 on: January 31, 2022, 11:30:51 AM »
Sorry you end up always playing goalie on this topic, LR. Thanks for your efforts.

You are welcome.

Quote
I just wanted to comment on this part, though, because I think it's unfair to American unvaccinated people.

I wasn't saying that by being vaccinated that Omicron could have been prevented.  Instead we'd have similar rate of spread and deaths to the UAE.

Quote
The fact is that even if 100% of Americans had gotten vaccinated and the States locally had achieved herd immunity as of summer 2021, the variants almost certainly didn't originate there anyhow.

Agreed, I wasn't suggesting that any current variants are of US origin. I'm talking about the differences between places like UAE vs the US.  That said, new variants could just as easily arise in the US as anywhere else with moderate to low vaccination rates (or more accurately new variants are arising all the time in the US but we've been lucky so far).

Quote
Nothing Americans did or didn't do would help places like India, and unless travel bans were to be permanent strains like Omicron would come anyhow.

The numbers would be similar to UAE though - at least 1/10th and probably more likely 1/20th the rate of infection we have.

Quote
So even in the best case compliance scenario Americans would have been 'safe' for a few months at best.

We'd be at 1/12 (probably more like 1/15 when you take in excess mortality) the cummulative deaths in the US if not for the anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.

Quote
So that's not really meaningful herd immunity, in the sense of 'we can get on with our lives now.'

With full US vaccination, plus masking, Omicron could never have gained a significant foothold.

Quote
It seems a lot of the time that unvaccinated people are treated as the cause of all these problems, when in fact I'm not sure how meaningful in this timeline their actions really were.

See above, they are responsible for about 92% of the deaths from COVID-19 and presumably a similar percentage of hospitalizations.

Quote
Maybe in some alternate reality where no worse variants would emerge you could say the unvaccinated are the reason the virus is still around. In this reality North Americans probably had relatively little to so with the global covid situation.

You don't have to achieve vaccine induced herd immunitiy to eliminate the vast majority of deaths and hospitalizations.  Enough vaccination to provide herd immunity from Delta and prior variants drops Omicron R to a level where masking largely controls it.

Quote
Maybe that was true last year, but I think masking and vaccination do little at this point compared with social distancing.

Social distancing is definitely an important part of the mix as well.  I don't think most people can social distance enough that vaccination isn't more important than what they achieve vs social distancing.

Quote
From what I've seen, if you're near someone with Omicron, unless you have cherry's hazmat suit you're getting it. Maybe it will be a less severe case but you're getting it. Keeping away from people is the only way to avoid spread.

Vaccine boosted individuals are quite likely to not get Omicron even with significant exposure.  The breakthrough rate is mostly when people are spending extensive time (5-10 hours) with infected individuals.  Unboosted individuals of course are much more succeptible to a breakthrough infection.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4296 on: January 31, 2022, 12:08:03 PM »
Quote
We should certainly judge people who originate and spread vaccine disinformation harshly - I think yanking medical licenses for such blatant disinformation would be warranted when using ones medical license to give naive individuals the false belief that the individual is spreading scientifically or medically supported information.

The author has as much credibility as you do, LetterRip.

Not at all, he is peddling claims that are heavily discredited.  My statements are largely just providing a summary of the science.

Quote
He's providing his opinion based on his education and using his own intelligence...just like you are.  Just because he's coming to different conclusions doesn't make it misinformation, or him a moron.  Tossing out insults like that doesn't make me believe you more.

He is entitled to his opinions, but facts are different from opinions.  Things that are anti-factual are not a matter of opinion, they are misinformation.  The author is claiming to be knowledgeable and informed about the topic and trying to lend authority to his statements by his usage of his MD.  He has less than the bare minimum of knowledge to offer an informed opinion of the topic.

Quote
Have you ever considered there's a chance there is something about the subject you don't know?  Or are wrong about?  Have you just considered it?

There is likely a great deal about the subject I don't know, but I generally won't write about something unless it is something I know well.  There is a possibility I am wrong about some things, though anything I've written about here I'm fairly careful to not do much in the way of speculation and stick to established science.

Quote
No.  "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, yank his medical license".  What an ego you have.

He demonstratably doesn't know what he is talking about, and is spreading dangerous misinformation and using the implied 'medical authority' that people assume an MD confers to spread disinformation.

Quote
Once again your whole argument is: - The vaccine is safe.  Any evidence to the contrary *must* be misinformation from morons or quacks, because it's safe.  You don't see the circular logic here?   You are making yourself less and less credible about this, despite lengthy and long worded posts.

Vaccines are strictly a source of antigens.  As such they can only have effects consistent with any other antigen.  These are creation of antibodies, and triggering short term release of cytokines.  Antigens can cause (rarely) production of autoantibodies - leading to the rare side effect of heart inflammation - however particular antigens can only trigger particular autoantibodies they don't trigger random autoantibodies so you won't get a large variety of different autoimmune reactions.  Antigens can also rarely trigger allergic reactions.  The short term release of cytokines causes the symptoms we experience after vaccination that are similar to the symptoms from an infection (tiredness, achiness, fever, chills) but there isn't a mechanism for them to persist after the antigen is cleared which happens within a few days.

I'm open to an argument that vaccines could cause problems via a to date unknown mechanism - but you should try and find a source that has at least a basic understanding of immunology that isn't making completely bogus statements.  That understands the extremely high chances that the symptoms are coincidental given the enormous number of vaccinations and provides evidence for why in the particular cases under consideration other causes were ruled out.  That provides an explanation for why antigens in vaccines haven't been found to previously trigger these responses. In short, someone who acts like a doctor or scientist and not an uninformed conspiracy theorist.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2022, 12:10:17 PM by LetterRip »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4297 on: January 31, 2022, 12:08:13 PM »
You can read more about Ray from his bio in the encyclopedia of American Loons.

Quote
Ray Sahelian is an MD and relatively well-known promoter of all sorts of herbal products and supplements for which there little or no evidence for efficacy, and a rather striking scarcity of evidence for safety. Though youtube seems to be his preferred marketing channel, Sahelian has written a number of books – peer review focusing on correlations between claim and reality, or the use of data is, shall we say, rather lax for such books, as supposed to real studies – on such supplements, including Mind Boosters, The Stevia Cookbook, Kava: The miracle antianxiety herb(if you buy into claims about something marketed as “miracle” anything you almost deserve what you get). His own products include the Physician Formulas line of nutritional supplements.

loon

You can also read about his FDA warning on quackwatch.

Quote
Q. Hi, I was told by Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D. from Quackwatch that Passion Rx is not safe. Why would he say that?
  A. Passion Rx is a sexual enhancement product comprised of several herbs. No herb or herbal product, including garlic, is completely safe -- just as no medicine is completely safe. However, when used properly, herbs are generally safer than drugs. If someone has sexual dysfunction, they are often willing to take the risk of taking a pill in order to improve their condition even if it has some side effects. Passion Rx has much fewer side effects than pharmaceutical drugs.

So, yes, LR does have a lot more credibility than good old Ray, purveyor of boner leaves.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4298 on: January 31, 2022, 12:34:56 PM »
PassionRX - the listed ingredients are all things that 'enhance libido' (some increase NO production for increased blood flow, some increase free testosterone, etc.) so it wouldn't be surprising if it worked (though as with all supplements there is always the risk that the expensive ingredients are 'fairy dusting' (a quantity insufficient to have effect, included only so that they can be listed as an ingredient.))   No idea as to safety as the quantities of specific ingredients aren't included.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4299 on: January 31, 2022, 01:25:37 PM »
I've looked up some of the other stuff he promotes

Kava for anxiety - some research supports this, no long term studies and there is some reports of liver injury, also potentially habit forming
5-HTP for depression - does convert to serotonin and some studies show effectiveness
Serrapeptase for inflammation - is a protease and has shown benefit for post wisdom tooth removal related inflammation, likely increased risk of bleeds, not studied for long term use

So he seems to be promoting things that are at least somewhat supported (didn't investigate all of what he has promoted though), but lack of long term usage information is always a serious risk and these are being promoted as essentially permanent usage, rather than one off.