COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.]

[Eeyore]

Unfortunately, we still have these folks among us

 

[SamAndreas]

Unfortunately, we still have these folks among us

Oh deer, for those poor doe's who will entangle themselves out of curiosity, and then be frozen in the artificial glow of his headlamps.

 

[Madmarsha]

When it comes to editorials the New York Times will publish a large array of guest opinions. They do it all the time, sometimes those editorials they publish will even support the CON-MAGA-anti vax types point of view.

I'm of the camp who accepts the science and takes the vaccine, and because I'm old and hate to get sick with even a common cold, I still wear my mask in stores and especially at the clinic.

It's still working, four years now, no sickness for me. I'm here to tell you I will be wearing the mask for the rest of my life, and it will be a longer life for it, that is clear.

Insofar as working they are not perfect, nothing is perfect. They are the best thing I've got I can use, and for me that works, and the vaccines work as well.

What's "the science"? Or rather, I suppose, WHO'S the science?

 

[DaveXA]

Unfortunately, we still have these folks among us

I hope this isn't real.

 

[Optimus Prime]

ROCK HILL, S.C. — Kashyap Patel looked forward to his team’s Friday lunches. All the doctors from his oncology practice would gather in the open-air courtyard under the shadow of a tall magnolia tree and catch up. The atmosphere tended to the lighthearted and optimistic. But that week, he was distressed.


It was 2021, a year into the coronaviruspandemic, and as he slid into a chair, Patel shared that he’d just seen a patient in his 40s with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare and lethal cancer of the bile ducts that typically strikes people in their 70s and 80s.

Initially, there was silence, and then one colleague after another said they’d recently treated patients who had similar diagnoses. Within a year of that meeting, the office had recorded seven such cases.

“I’ve been in practice 23 years and have never seen anything like this,” Patel, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates, later recalled. Asutosh Gor, another oncologist, agreed: “We were all shaken.”

There was other weirdness, too: multiple patients contending with multiple types of cancer arising almost simultaneously, and more than a dozen new cases of other rare cancers.

Increasingly, Patel was left with an unsettling thought: Could the coronavirus be inflaming the embers of cancer?
The uptick in aggressive, late-stage cancers since the dawn of the pandemic is confirmed by some early national data and a number of large cancer institutions. Many experts have mostly dismissed the trend as an expected consequence of disruptions to health care that began in 2020.

But not everyone.

The idea that some viruses can cause or accelerate cancer is hardly new. Scientists have recognized this possibility since the 1960s, and today, researchers estimate 15 to 20 percent of all cancers worldwide originate from infectious agents such as HPV, Epstein-Barr and hepatitis B.

It will probably be many years before the world has conclusive answers about whether the coronavirus is complicit in the surge of cancer cases, but Patel and other concerned scientists are calling on the U.S. government to make this question a priority knowing it could affect treatment and management of millions of cancer patients for decades to come.

“We are completely under-investigating this virus,” said Douglas C. Wallace, a University of Pennsylvania geneticist and evolutionary biologist. “The effects of repeatedly getting this throughout our lives is going to be much more significant than people are thinking.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/06/06/covid-cancer-increase-link/

 

[tenordas]

What's "the science"? Or rather, I suppose, WHO'S the science?

And there's the whole question.

The "science" first said wearing cloth masks was ineffective and useless. Then, the "science" changed its (their) mind and said masks were 100% necessary; then later, after some clinical trials, the "science" said they were right the first time, cloth masks didn't stop anything, only n95 masks were effective.

Astrazeneca withdrew their vaccine, with the public statement that it had become "outdated," but anyone with eyes knows it was because of the excessive number of lawsuits worldwide against them for side effects from the vaccine.

I took the Pfizer version at the time, but the truth is we all acted as guinea pigs for the various vaccines because they had not been properly tested, which is not how scientific research is supposed to go. I don't seem to have suffered any side-effects from it, but I know a few people who have, though none of them are life-threatening.

Now, I don't "blame Biden" or "blame the Democrats" because the truth is before the election, the Republican party was pushing for everyone to take the vaccines once ready while the Democrats were saying "don't trust them," but once the election happened, the two parties changed their sides of the argument. Had the Republicans won, the vaccines would have been pushed just as hard by them instead, IMHO, and the Democrats would have remained the party of the vaccine skeptics. All part of the game they both play... (sorry for the brief political rant)

 

[SamAndreas]

What's "the science"? Or rather, I suppose, WHO'S the science?

It's the 50% of the "science" I find on the Internet which I decide is the "proper science" when I google for details of the science. I throw out more than 50% of that "so call science on the Internet."

But the other half is real science. One just needs to know which is which. It's usually not hard for me to tell the difference. I can tell by the way of the words when I read what is being called a study or a paper.

Many of the so called studies are fake. But They won't fool someone who knows what to expect from a true study.

I'm the one who decides what the science is for me. With a degree in Physics and a wife and daughter with degrees as well in the family we decide as a family, and I think we are qualified to make those decisions for us.

My wife is a historian, and my daughter and I actually are scientists. Sort of scientists anyway.

 

[Madmarsha]

And there's the whole question.

Which is why I asked. Because you have to know where you're starting. And even if that IS a starting place to begin with.

You go to the doctor. Doc says, "You have X." Actually they never say, You have X. They say, You MAY have X. And they use many, many more words than that that you have to decipher. Then you say, Well, I want a second opinion. Wait, why do you need a second "opinion" if it's "the science". Or stated another way, if it's black and white.

You're an attorney. You have a case that needs experts. You get one. The one side gets one. Well, you're on 2 different sides so you need to get an expert that says something different. So now the jury needs to decide which expert to believe.

Uh-oh. "The science" is now .... oh what's the word? Opinion.

 

[DaveXA]

And there's the whole question.

The "science" first said wearing cloth masks was ineffective and useless. Then, the "science" changed its (their) mind and said masks were 100% necessary; then later, after some clinical trials, the "science" said they were right the first time, cloth masks didn't stop anything, only n95 masks were effective.

Fwiw, masks do work, even the sub n95s, just not 100% effective. Only somewhat effective. Somewhat effective, whatever that % is is better than 0% effective. If it slows transmission down, it's accomplished what it's supposed to. And incidence communicable diseases dropped dramatically, and no doubt some of that was due to people working from home, but also from mask usage.

Mask usage has been around a while (long before Covid was a thing) and some people use them regularly for myriad reasons, i.e. immuno-compromised or some health condition. Masks do work, even if not 100% effective. I rarely wear masks, and I don't think they should be mandated unless very narrow circumstances, i.e. an immediate or serious emergency situation.

Astrazeneca withdrew their vaccine, with the public statement that it had become "outdated," but anyone with eyes knows it was because of the excessive number of lawsuits worldwide against them for side effects from the vaccine.

I took the Pfizer version at the time, but the truth is we all acted as guinea pigs for the various vaccines because they had not been properly tested, which is not how scientific research is supposed to go. I don't seem to have suffered any side-effects from it, but I know a few people who have, though none of them are life-threatening.

We weren't exactly guinea pigs. The type of vaccine used had already been around for over a decade. What was different was the vaccines developed were specifically to target the strains already known. It was still a novel virus and with all of the unknown factors, its not surprising that recommendations shifted as more was learned about the virus. For a while there was a lot of debate about the transmissibility and viral loads needed to cause significant infection and debate on who was most vulnerable to the virus because even seemingly healthy people were dying from it during the worst months.

And keep in minds that tens of thousands of people went through through clinical trials in 2020 before the vaccines were approved by the FDA. Anyone saying there weren't trials is using conspiracy theory sources to support their claims.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2A22CD/

Now, I don't "blame Biden" or "blame the Democrats" because the truth is before the election, the Republican party was pushing for everyone to take the vaccines once ready while the Democrats were saying "don't trust them," but once the election happened, the two parties changed their sides of the argument. Had the Republicans won, the vaccines would have been pushed just as hard by them instead, IMHO, and the Democrats would have remained the party of the vaccine skeptics. All part of the game they both play... (sorry for the brief political rant)

No comment on the politics as that is for the MAP site.

 

[Madmarsha]

It's the 50% of the "science" I find on the Internet which I decide is the "proper science" when I google for details of the science. I throw out more than 50% of that "so call science on the Internet."

But the other half is real science. One just needs to know which is which. It's usually not hard for me to tell the difference. I can tell by the way of the words when I read what is being called a study or a paper.

Many of the so called studies are fake. But They won't fool someone who knows what to expect from a true study.

I'm the one who decides what the science is for me. With a degree in Physics and a wife and daughter with degrees as well in the family we decide as a family, and I think we are qualified to make those decisions for us.

My wife is a historian, and my daughter and I actually are scientists. Sort of scientists anyway.

Thank you for your answer. After the last 4 years, I've learned to not trust that phrase, "the science". Because the average person believed that meant something, that it was black and white. Dangerously that phrase was used to mean other phrases. Like "the truth". Or "trust us".

 

[Madmarsha]

I took the Pfizer version at the time, but the truth is we all acted as guinea pigs for the various vaccines because they had not been properly tested, which is not how scientific research is supposed to go. I don't seem to have suffered any side-effects from it

Same.

Now, I don't "blame Biden" or "blame the Democrats" because the truth is before the election, the Republican party was pushing for everyone to take the vaccines once ready while the Democrats were saying "don't trust them," but once the election happened, the two parties changed their sides of the argument. Had the Republicans won, the vaccines would have been pushed just as hard by them instead, IMHO, and the Democrats would have remained the party of the vaccine skeptics. All part of the game they both play... (sorry for the brief political rant)

Yep, we all went full steam ahead because we all thought we were gonna die. Because of "the science".

 

[tenordas]

Fwiw, masks do work, even the sub n95s, just not 100% effective. Only somewhat effective. Somewhat effective, whatever that % is is better than 0% effective. If it slows transmission down, it's accomplished what it's supposed to. And incidence communicable diseases dropped dramatically, and no doubt some of that was due to people working from home, but also from mask usage.

Mask usage has been around a while (long before Covid was a thing) and some people use them regularly for myriad reasons, i.e. immuno-compromised or so.e health condition. Masks do work, even if not 100% effective. I rarely wear masks, and I don't think they should be mandated unless very narrow circumstances, i.e. an immediate or serious emergency situation.

We weren't exactly guinea pigs. The type of vaccine used had already been around for over a decade. What was different was the vaccines developed were specifically to target the strains already known. It was still a novel virus and with all of the unknown factors, its not surprising that recommendations shifted as more was learned about the virus. For a while there was a lot of debate about the transmissibility and viral loads needed to cause significant infection and debate on who was most vulnerable to the virus because even seemingly healthy people were dying from it during the worst months.

And keep in minds that tens of thousands of people went through through clinical trials in 2020 before the vaccines were approved by the FDA. Anyone saying there weren't trials is using conspiracy theory sources to support their claims.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2A22CD/

No comment on the politics as that is for the MAP site.

I didn't say they didn't go through trials, I said they weren't properly tested, meaning, as we all know, the trials were fast-tracked and extremely short, so any long term or slow to appear side effects simply weren't known; hence, my use of the term guinea pigs.

Now certainly, I know the people in authority felt this was necessary because of the extreme danger the virus represented to them, and I know we were dealing with an unknown, so I fully realize they were giving it their best shot and what else can one do? - but it doesn't change the fact that the vaccines didn't go through the usual, normal process of being tested, which lasts much longer than what the vaccines went through.

 

[DaveXA]

I didn't say they didn't go through trials, I said they weren't properly tested, meaning, as we all know, the trials were fast-tracked and extremely short, so any long term or slow to appear side effects simply weren't known; hence, my use of the term guinea pigs.

Now certainly, I know the people in authority felt this was necessary because of the extreme danger the virus represented to them, and I know we were dealing with an unknown, so I fully realize they were giving it their best shot and what else can one do? - but it doesn't change the fact that the vaccines didn't go through the usual, normal process of being tested, which lasts much longer than what the vaccines went through.

I mean, you'll have to define properly tested but normally trials and studies for new vaccines can last from 5 to 10 years. In the case of Covid, we couldn't wait that long. The trials lasted less than 6 months in this case, and while not perfect (no vaccine is regardless of trial length, and some have significantly more side effects than Covid vaccines) they definitely slowed Covid down significantly, most significantly, the mortality rate. It was effective in reducing the severity of the cases as well.

I mean, the FDA could have decided to go through full clinical trials, but then you'd have millions more deaths and the disease lasting substantially longer than it did as a pandemic. It's endemic at this stage and is still out there, just not as bad as it was. At least we're prepared somewhat to deal with it if a new more dangerous strain hits. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

 

[Saint_Ward]

And there's the whole question.

The "science" first said wearing cloth masks was ineffective and useless. Then, the "science" changed its (their) mind and said masks were 100% necessary; then later, after some clinical trials, the "science" said they were right the first time, cloth masks didn't stop anything, only n95 masks were effective.

Astrazeneca withdrew their vaccine, with the public statement that it had become "outdated," but anyone with eyes knows it was because of the excessive number of lawsuits worldwide against them for side effects from the vaccine.

I took the Pfizer version at the time, but the truth is we all acted as guinea pigs for the various vaccines because they had not been properly tested, which is not how scientific research is supposed to go. I don't seem to have suffered any side-effects from it, but I know a few people who have, though none of them are life-threatening.

Now, I don't "blame Biden" or "blame the Democrats" because the truth is before the election, the Republican party was pushing for everyone to take the vaccines once ready while the Democrats were saying "don't trust them," but once the election happened, the two parties changed their sides of the argument. Had the Republicans won, the vaccines would have been pushed just as hard by them instead, IMHO, and the Democrats would have remained the party of the vaccine skeptics. All part of the game they both play... (sorry for the brief political rant)

While a chunk of what you say is true enough, I don't think that is an accurate summary of events when it comes to science.