COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

and if the people who didn't get the vaccine instead got covid - how many more would have been hospitalized? how many more would have died?

 

[LonghornSaint]

And now we know that “some level” means “equal to or better than vax”

This bugs me because we fired people in preparation of the employer mandate who came to us in good faith with antibody tests saying “I’ve had Covid and recovered, I don’t need the shot”. And we said Sorry, no dice. Because the guidance we received would not consider natural immunity.

We didn't know what level of protection it had at the time. And for employment in fields that involve working with the sick, or elderly such as in a hospital, it was logical to dictate the requirement of vaccination, and not to assume prior immunity.

A perfect example of a prior infection NOT conferring immunity would be chicken pox. If you caught chicken pox as a child, you are at risk for getting shingles, which is why they came out with a vaccine for it.

 

[efil4stnias]

And now we know that “some level” means “equal to or better than vax”

This bugs me because we fired people in preparation of the employer mandate who came to us in good faith with antibody tests saying “I’ve had Covid and recovered, I don’t need the shot”. And we said Sorry, no dice. Because the guidance we received would not consider natural immunity.

Employers had to navigate the liability - because you can best believe, had an employer "rolled the dice" on allowing natural immunity to serve as "vaccine" and some one fell ill as a direct result of either employee transmission or failure to provide adequate protection ( which was not known at that time ) a suit would have followed.

Whether or not it would have been successful, cant say. But there isnt a company in the US willing to absorb legal costs to defend what they "think is right" amid the !@#!@#show that was COVID 19.

Now, 3 years have passed, extensive tests/trials etc have taken place and it is showing that it does.

Too bad we couldnt press "fast forward" in 2021.

I get that it bugs you, but this isnt some " I knew it" moment...some of the brightest scientific minds at that time couldnt say with 100% certainty.

Another tenet of virology/science is test, re-test and test again. That takes time.

 

[DaveXA]

and if the people who didn't get the vaccine instead got covid - how many more would have been hospitalized? how many more would have died?

I think what he's talking about is whether or not requiring someone who was already infected to get vaccinated should be a matter of policy.

And fwiw, I think back then we didn't have the benefit of hindsight. We do to some degree now. People and testing aren't always reliable, so I can understand businesses requiring the vax regardless whether there was prior contact with Covid. They have to deal with liability issues as pointed out by others.

 

[efil4stnias]

I think what he's talking about is whether or not requiring someone who was already infected to get vaccinated should be a matter of policy.

then he should sit in risk management meetings.

 

[DaveXA]

then he should sit in risk management meetings.

Lol, yeah, I added to my post. I actually have a degree in finance with and emphasis on insurance and risk management. So I totally get it.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

Also, if this assumtion was presented as fact, (when there was no evidence of it) I have no doubt a certain group of people would have intentionally been trying to self infect and intenially infect others in resistance of the vaccine.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Also, if this assumtion was presented as fact, (when there was no evidence of it) I have no doubt a certain group of people would have intentionally been trying to self infect and intenially infect others in resistance of the vaccine.

early on some were doing just that, I think they were called covid parties (I'm sure we would have talked about it in the original covid thread) trying to reach herd immunity

 

[bigdaddysaints]

early on some were doing just that, I think they were called covid parties (I'm sure we would have talked about it in the original covid thread) trying to reach herd immunity

yea, they stupididity of some people amaze me. If they die from having a Covid party, then they got what they asked for. But there are deranged people who would try and infect others unknowingly (to save them from the vaccine).

 

[Optimus Prime]

for what it's worth
=================

A new study published in Environmental Research and Public Health suggests that individuals who struggle with problem-solving and demonstrate absolutist thinking, political conservatism, and xenophobia are more likely to refuse to get vaccinated. These findings indicate that a focus on improving problem-solving skills may result in improvements in public health due to higher vaccination rates............

The collected data showed that those with lower problem-solving ability and high socio-cognitive polarization were more likely to score low on measures of vaccine acceptance. Low problem-solving skills may represent a risk factor for vaccine refusal, with “cognitive and social rigidity playing a crucial role in undermining the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The data also revealed the close relationship between high socio-cognitive polarization and vaccine refusal. For example, those high in absolutist thinking or unable to consider situations as nuanced were more likely to be hesitant to vaccinate their children. In addition, those with very right-leaning political values were more likely to be anti-vaccination. Combined, these findings illuminate the potential connection between problem-solving ability, socio-cognitive rigidity, and vaccine hesitancy or refusal.

The research team acknowledged that their use of the internet prevented demographics without technological access from participating in the study. This may mean their results are slightly skewed. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of the study prevents direct cause-and-effect conclusions..............

MSN

Not Getting Vaccinated? It Is a Matter of Problem-Solving Abilities and Socio-Cognitive Polarization

The anti-COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States provided a significant contribution to the control of the virus spread. Despite the recommendations by public health institutions, vaccine skepticism and hesitancy contributed to low vaccine uptake, thus possibly disrupting the...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Sailorsaint]

for what it's worth
=================

A new study published in Environmental Research and Public Health suggests that individuals who struggle with problem-solving and demonstrate absolutist thinking, political conservatism, and xenophobia are more likely to refuse to get vaccinated. These findings indicate that a focus on improving problem-solving skills may result in improvements in public health due to higher vaccination rates............

The collected data showed that those with lower problem-solving ability and high socio-cognitive polarization were more likely to score low on measures of vaccine acceptance. Low problem-solving skills may represent a risk factor for vaccine refusal, with “cognitive and social rigidity playing a crucial role in undermining the decision to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The data also revealed the close relationship between high socio-cognitive polarization and vaccine refusal. For example, those high in absolutist thinking or unable to consider situations as nuanced were more likely to be hesitant to vaccinate their children. In addition, those with very right-leaning political values were more likely to be anti-vaccination. Combined, these findings illuminate the potential connection between problem-solving ability, socio-cognitive rigidity, and vaccine hesitancy or refusal.

The research team acknowledged that their use of the internet prevented demographics without technological access from participating in the study. This may mean their results are slightly skewed. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of the study prevents direct cause-and-effect conclusions..............

MSN

Not Getting Vaccinated? It Is a Matter of Problem-Solving Abilities and Socio-Cognitive Polarization

The anti-COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States provided a significant contribution to the control of the virus spread. Despite the recommendations by public health institutions, vaccine skepticism and hesitancy contributed to low vaccine uptake, thus possibly disrupting the...

www.mdpi.com

So, what they're saying are those that score high on the Dunning-Krueger scale and those that follow them without question are likely to refuse the vaccine. I could have saved the gubment some money on that study.....

 

[brandon8283]

And now we know that “some level” means “equal to or better than vax”

This bugs me because we fired people in preparation of the employer mandate who came to us in good faith with antibody tests saying “I’ve had Covid and recovered, I don’t need the shot”. And we said Sorry, no dice. Because the guidance we received would not consider natural immunity.

I think what he's talking about is whether or not requiring someone who was already infected to get vaccinated should be a matter of policy.

And fwiw, I think back then we didn't have the benefit of hindsight. We do to some degree now. People and testing aren't always reliable, so I can understand businesses requiring the vax regardless whether there was prior contact with Covid. They have to deal with liability issues as pointed out by others.

There was nothing stopping the previously infected from also getting a vaccine to ensure they were in compliance. It’s not like the previously infected were not allowed to also vaccinate.

Which brings us back to the real point - the only people this affects are the anti vax conspiracists who were too afraid of a needle to keep their jobs.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Guess this can go here
=================
First, the group of doctors championed ivermectin as a covid panacea. It failed to live up to the hype. Now, they’re promoting the anti-parasitic to prevent and treat the flu and RSV.


The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, formed in 2020 to “prevent and treat covid,” is touting ivermectin for common respiratory infections amid a dramatic drop in prescriptions for the drug as clinical trials undermined claims of its efficacy against covid.


There is no clinical data in humans to support using ivermectin for flu or RSV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical experts.

And yet, the alliance publishes “treatment protocols” promoting the use of ivermectin for flu, RSV and covid that it says have been downloaded more than a million times.

It also recommends a network of hundreds of medical providers and pharmacies that can provide prescriptions for ivermectin, often through virtual visits that can run hundreds of dollars.


“Profiting from bunk and nonsense has no place in ethical medicine,” said Arthur Caplan, head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine who called the alliance’s promotion of ivermectin for covid, flu and RSV “fraud during a pandemic on a significant scale.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/02/26/ivermectin-use-covid-flu-rsv/

 

[nolaspe]

Higher-Dose Ivermectin vs Placebo and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19

This platform randomized clinical trial examines the effectiveness of ivermectin at a targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Conclusions
Among outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a targeted maximum dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, was not shown to improve time to sustained recovery compared with placebo. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with COVID-19.

 

[Saintman2884]

I feel like the first sentence of that article doesn't understand what the rest said.

Low confidence doesn't mean "most likely".

Maybe it needed to be written as, "The US Dept of Energy provided an assessment on if Covid 19 originated in a lab, and it ranked that assessment as low confidence" Like, it's an exercise.

The CDC, FBI, WHO are going to play this game very carefully and extremely cautiously because they don't want to point fingers and assign blame to any one particular party, or country that they were, essentially responsible for the world's most deadliest coronavirus pandemic outbreak in a century.

It would also mean, albeit indirectly that Trump's accusations or insinuations that Covid-19 likely emerged from a secret Chinese Wuhan lab leak were true or accurate and it would give him an unnecessary dose of self-vindication and validation he doesn't deserve.

Guess this can go here
=================
First, the group of doctors championed ivermectin as a covid panacea. It failed to live up to the hype. Now, they’re promoting the anti-parasitic to prevent and treat the flu and RSV.


The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, formed in 2020 to “prevent and treat covid,” is touting ivermectin for common respiratory infections amid a dramatic drop in prescriptions for the drug as clinical trials undermined claims of its efficacy against covid.


There is no clinical data in humans to support using ivermectin for flu or RSV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical experts.

And yet, the alliance publishes “treatment protocols” promoting the use of ivermectin for flu, RSV and covid that it says have been downloaded more than a million times.

It also recommends a network of hundreds of medical providers and pharmacies that can provide prescriptions for ivermectin, often through virtual visits that can run hundreds of dollars.


“Profiting from bunk and nonsense has no place in ethical medicine,” said Arthur Caplan, head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine who called the alliance’s promotion of ivermectin for covid, flu and RSV “fraud during a pandemic on a significant scale.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/02/26/ivermectin-use-covid-flu-rsv/

One reason why these nonsensical, pseudo-scientific treatments, "cures", or descriptions of medications meant to alleviate, lessen symptoms or side-effects of flu, Covid is because some in the CDC, WHO made some serious initial missteps, mistakes or contradictory comments when Coronavirus first began spreading, plus some feel WHO inspectors allowed the Chinese to too easily cover-up possible links to accidental lab leaks at their Wuhan virulogy lab, which if, God forbid, would have terrible consequences if confirmed to be true on Sino-U.S. relations. Essentially, Chinese incompetence or ineptness was a primary cause for the world's worst pandemic since H1N1 virus, " Spanish Flu" and not only did they inadvertently cause it, they knew or were aware of the catastrophe and have tried(and still trying) to cover it up.

Unfortunately, the Wuhan lab leak theory might appear to have some credence to it that could have serious scientific credibility to support it and even if it was an accident, that still makes them culpable on a gigantic, unimaginable scale.