Coronavirus Thread v.2

[lonestar]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

I'd add the disclaimer that if you're "exploring" your options without consulting a medical or pharmaceutical professional or having a medical degree yourself, you're probably still an idiot.

[El Barto]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

I'd add the disclaimer that if you're "exploring" your options without consulting a medical or pharmaceutical professional or having a medical degree yourself, you're probably still an idiot.

I wouldn't. I've already said that of my doctors, I doubt any of them have actually studied the studies, and would most likely just parrot the recommendations and guidelines. Interestingly, of my doctors, the one I'd most expect to be up on the research is my ENT. He just strikes me as the more curious and scientific type of guy. Or maybe my podiatrist, for the same reason. There are definitely doctors at the transplant institute who would have really dug in hard on the research, but they're not really the types that see patients on the regular, and I don't get to make requests.

[hefdaddy42]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

It's fair.  The people taking it are almost all buying the horse-portion from tractor supply and self-medicating, not taking the much smaller human-sized dose that would be prescribed by their doctor, if their doctor would do such a thing.  It's like taking peanut butter for a sore knee.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

Yeah, that's why they are morons.

[lonestar]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

I'd add the disclaimer that if you're "exploring" your options without consulting a medical or pharmaceutical professional or having a medical degree yourself, you're probably still an idiot.

I wouldn't. I've already said that of my doctors, I doubt any of them have actually studied the studies, and would most likely just parrot the recommendations and guidelines. Interestingly, of my doctors, the one I'd most expect to be up on the research is my ENT. He just strikes me as the more curious and scientific type of guy. Or maybe my podiatrist, for the same reason. There are definitely doctors at the transplant institute who would have really dug in hard on the research, but they're not really the types that see patients on the regular, and I don't get to make requests.

On this we'll agree to disagree. Anyone who self medicate pharmaceuticals without consulting a medical professional concerning dosage or applicability/pertinent efficacy is an idiot, and I'm including myself in that as I spent decades self medicating with random pharmaceuticals that I really had zero education on and definitely could've killed myself at many points.

[Grappler]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

This is exactly what I was going to post.  When someone else's behaviors affect my kids' health, we have a problem.

Does covid mimic a bad chest cold?  Yes.  I was reasonably certain that he didn't have covid (my daughter tested negative a week before, and he probably picked up her cold).  But he'd also been at preschool twice this week and could have picked it up from a kid there.  Is there a good chance that kid's family doesn't adhere to covid mitigations (mask wearing when required, being vaccinated) based on where I live?  Yes.   

It pisses me off so much to see these parents holding anti-mask/anti vax protests in the surrounding suburbs while I am driving a sick little boy to the hospital and while my wife is up all night long worrying that he could have covid.  It's absolutely not fair to others to knowingly disregard public health measures.  I know covid is here to stay and once my kids can get vaccinated, I'll let up on this belief.  But until then, I have every right to be angry at others for their behavior when it can potentially impact my kid.  We have worked so hard to keep our family healthy.  My wife felt like a failure yesterday when she thought he might have covid, on her birthday no less.  He's 3 - half of his life has been spent either staying closer to home or wearing a mask, so a cold just took root in his chest with his immune system not having to do much work for the last year.  Had that been covid, he might have been in really, really bad shape.

[Stadler]

This thread is awesome.

 

It's not really, though. To me, it's kind of sad.  It's pretty much what I've been writing about for going on two years now, writ large for all of us to see.   Party 1 bitches and moans about how Party 2 isn't doing what we want them to (with obligatory mocking of perfectly reasonable arguments like "personal responsibility") then when a member of Party 2 engages, it's more mocking and challenging and belittling - even if subtle - and Party 1 wonders why Party 2 isn't playing ball.  Oh, we're polite about it, but there's a lot more use of the word "crazy" than should be if it was a good faith conversation.

[jammindude]

I’m vaccinated and I tend to trust the scientists…but something that’s being hinted at really resonates with me. Doctors parroting what they are told.

Every doctor I’ve seen in the better part of the last two decades basically listens to your symptoms, takes your personal info and vitals, and punches it all into WebMD, and then they do what it tells them. It tends to make people feel like they are just part of a machine. The whole process just makes you feel like you’re one step closer to that scene in Idiocracy.

[Stadler]

FDA approval means little to me, either way, especially without long-term data.

I suspect this is where we disagree, because while we definitely could agree on a number of things, chiefly: corporate boards that run companies like Pfizer being driven by self-interest and profit alone; the government being corrupt; regulatory bodies being imperfect and inconsistent; the media being out of control, and so on, at the end of the day, it's still the best bet to stick with the guidance. Because what is the alternative?

I'm sure we all have tolerances for how closely we follow the guidance. There were things my family did that were not recommended, as I'm sure the same is true for you and your family. But that vaccine? That's the best shot we've got at getting back to normal. At this point, even if the whole thing were one big lie, just to line Pfizer's pockets, I'd take the damn thing, just to get it over with. Because what else can you do? *I* don't believe it's a big lie, in fact I know plenty of people who've been negatively affected, some even fatally. But, just sayin'...

I totally get where you're coming from... that the powers-that-be lie to us when they're at their worst, and even when they're at their best, fail to stop the myriad of incentives from causing terrible chain reactions that lead humanity down paths it would not have deliberately chosen. Sadly, change doesn't happen overnight, and improvements come slowly...  this has been our species from Day Zero. It just takes time.

I like this.  Fair, reasoned, balanced...

[Stadler]

I’m vaccinated and I tend to trust the scientists…but something that’s being hinted at really resonates with me. Doctors parroting what they are told.

Every doctor I’ve seen in the better part of the last two decades basically listens to your symptoms, takes your personal info and vitals, and punches it all into WebMD, and then they do what it tells them. It tends to make people feel like they are just part of a machine. The whole process just makes you feel like you’re one step closer to that scene in Idiocracy.

It's here somewhere in one of the old threads, but there was a conversation a couple years ago about the pure genius of marketing certain drugs directly to the public, so that they would go back in to their doctors and ask for them.  The doctors were then put in the position of having to either stand up to the patient and risk losing them (and their income) or giving a medicine/drug that they might not have given 100% voluntarily.    I don't know about the WebMD, or Idiocracy (that's a movie, right?) but the dynamic is certainly something to discuss.

[Ben_Jamin]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

I'd add the disclaimer that if you're "exploring" your options without consulting a medical or pharmaceutical professional or having a medical degree yourself, you're probably still an idiot.

I wouldn't. I've already said that of my doctors, I doubt any of them have actually studied the studies, and would most likely just parrot the recommendations and guidelines. Interestingly, of my doctors, the one I'd most expect to be up on the research is my ENT. He just strikes me as the more curious and scientific type of guy. Or maybe my podiatrist, for the same reason. There are definitely doctors at the transplant institute who would have really dug in hard on the research, but they're not really the types that see patients on the regular, and I don't get to make requests.

On this we'll agree to disagree. Anyone who self medicate pharmaceuticals without consulting a medical professional concerning dosage or applicability/pertinent efficacy is an idiot, and I'm including myself in that as I spent decades self medicating with random pharmaceuticals that I really had zero education on and definitely could've killed myself at many points.

I feel this same way regarding a person's diet and Diet Trends. How people will try any diet and then wonder why it's not working. Did you see a nutritionist first to see what nutrients your body is lacking? Seeing a nutritionist first will tell you what your body needs and what foods to be eating that have those nutrients and what foods not to be eating that is causing you to have too much of that nutrient.

Your body has effects from too much or too little nutrients that it can cause health issues by eating too much like sugars, breads and pastas, and by eating too little nutrients your body and organs need to be working properly.

[Stadler]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

I'm not sure EXACTLY what the question is, but even so, it depends.    For me - and I don't mean "my opinion", but rather, my knowledge of the law and concept of forcing behavior of others - the key words are "directly because".   Some yahoo in Missouri not getting the vaccine is not "direct cause" to my kid having COVID in the same way that, say, running over them with a car would be.   Even if some yahoo in Hartford, CT doesn't get the vaccine, and there's COVID in my school, it's not a "directly because", since we KNOW that you can get COVID with the vaccine and many vaccinated are asymptomatic (statistics don't matter here, so don't reply "but the ODDS!"; we're talking direct causation not probabilities).   

Same with bullying; if Kid A (haha, I hate Radiohead!) comes up and punched my kid in the balls and takes his lunch money, then Kid A ought to be punished.  Do I necessarily think that all other kids now have to act a certain way because my kid took one in the pouch?  No. 

If you're talking something more general, like car seat safety, or, I don't know, child predator laws, there are mechanisms.   If you think someone made your kid sick, sue them and see if it pans out.   I can't speak where you live, but there are easily a half dozen lawyers in my neck of the woods that would take the case on contingency if they thought you were right (John Haymond, Carter Mario, Mark A. Salomone, Trantolo & Trantolo, Gould Injury Law... I can sing the jingles if you want!).  We're really talking about forcing someone else to act proactively on the OFF CHANCE that your (or someone else's kid) MIGHT get sick.

And INB4,YES, I know this is how we - really, politicians - operate, and that doesn't make it right.  That we consistently close the barn door after the cow gets out doesn't mean it's a great strategy.  I give the example all the time: Chris Murphy crying crocodile tears while pandering for votes with his arms around the families of Sandy Hook, while they stand there in shock like deer in headlights.

[Ben_Jamin]

I’m vaccinated and I tend to trust the scientists…but something that’s being hinted at really resonates with me. Doctors parroting what they are told.

Every doctor I’ve seen in the better part of the last two decades basically listens to your symptoms, takes your personal info and vitals, and punches it all into WebMD, and then they do what it tells them. It tends to make people feel like they are just part of a machine. The whole process just makes you feel like you’re one step closer to that scene in Idiocracy.

Add in the fact the healthcare system wasn't as great before Covid either. It's like people have this perception that the Healthcare system was working before the pandemic, when our entire human healthcare system isn't that almighty and the best of the best as people claim it to be.

These issues of Insurance, denying care if you don't have insurance, punishing for not having insurance, and lack of care for veterans, all play into a person's perceptions and attitudes towards the entire Healthcare System. Which made them have a distrust for it and all that is a part of that system.

[Stadler]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

It's fair.  The people taking it are almost all buying the horse-portion from tractor supply and self-medicating, not taking the much smaller human-sized dose that would be prescribed by their doctor, if their doctor would do such a thing.  It's like taking peanut butter for a sore knee.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

Yeah, that's why they are morons.

Every time I hear "morons" and "idiots" and "crazy" I hear Richard Rawlings' "whoo!" in my head.

That's not a good thing.

[Stadler]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

This is exactly what I was going to post.  When someone else's behaviors affect my kids' health, we have a problem.

Does covid mimic a bad chest cold?  Yes.  I was reasonably certain that he didn't have covid (my daughter tested negative a week before, and he probably picked up her cold).  But he'd also been at preschool twice this week and could have picked it up from a kid there.  Is there a good chance that kid's family doesn't adhere to covid mitigations (mask wearing when required, being vaccinated) based on where I live?  Yes.   

It pisses me off so much to see these parents holding anti-mask/anti vax protests in the surrounding suburbs while I am driving a sick little boy to the hospital and while my wife is up all night long worrying that he could have covid.  It's absolutely not fair to others to knowingly disregard public health measures.  I know covid is here to stay and once my kids can get vaccinated, I'll let up on this belief.  But until then, I have every right to be angry at others for their behavior when it can potentially impact my kid.  We have worked so hard to keep our family healthy.  My wife felt like a failure yesterday when she thought he might have covid, on her birthday no less.  He's 3 - half of his life has been spent either staying closer to home or wearing a mask, so a cold just took root in his chest with his immune system not having to do much work for the last year.  Had that been covid, he might have been in really, really bad shape.

You DO have every right to be angry.  No one said that.  You being angry - or happy, or sad, or frustrated, or horny, or whatever - is yours and yours alone.  What you DO with that anger is not. 

And NONE of this is to be insensitive, or undermine how much I hope your little boy walks away from this - SOON - unscathed.

[El Barto]

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

It's fair.  The people taking it are almost all buying the horse-portion from tractor supply and self-medicating, not taking the much smaller human-sized dose that would be prescribed by their doctor, if their doctor would do such a thing.  It's like taking peanut butter for a sore knee.

This isn't exactly true. For one thing lots of people are taking it in appropriate doses from appropriate sources. The bigger issue, though, is that a Dr. won't prescribe anything that hasn't been approved for specific people, under specific circumstances, on specific days of the week, and for specific purposes. They're too worried about getting sanctioned and getting sued. The fact that no doctor would prescribe it isn't exactly telling. There are doctors recommending it off the record, though, because taken correctly it is safe, and it does show potential. If people started to notice that Simvastatin (Zocor) was beneficial in the treatment of Covid, no doctors would prescribe it for that purpose. They couldn't. Plenty of people would take it, though. Would they be morons? 

Eating horse pills from the feed store? Moron. Taking it in a responsible measure, despite no prescription? Not a moron.

[jingle.boy]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

I'm not sure EXACTLY what the question is, but even so, it depends.    For me - and I don't mean "my opinion", but rather, my knowledge of the law and concept of forcing behavior of others - the key words are "directly because".   Some yahoo in Missouri not getting the vaccine is not "direct cause" to my kid having COVID in the same way that, say, running over them with a car would be.   Even if some yahoo in Hartford, CT doesn't get the vaccine, and there's COVID in my school, it's not a "directly because", since we KNOW that you can get COVID with the vaccine and many vaccinated are asymptomatic (statistics don't matter here, so don't reply "but the ODDS!"; we're talking direct causation not probabilities).   

Same with bullying; if Kid A (haha, I hate Radiohead!) comes up and punched my kid in the balls and takes his lunch money, then Kid A ought to be punished.  Do I necessarily think that all other kids now have to act a certain way because my kid took one in the pouch?  No.

No, but I suspect you (and your kid) have a reasonable expectation that a litany of other kids aren't going to simply go around punching balls and stealing sammie's.  How about when Kid A (and/or B, C, D and E) is (are) mentally bullying your kid, and there's no direct/tangible/physical *evidence* to prove it?  In my world, that's a standard that is unacceptable.  And most school boards would agree.

On the whole of your post, you have some fair points I'll concede - the individualized direct causality measurement isn't fair or appropriate.  But while we're at it, let's come off of the legal/litigation topic (because I'm quite certain school-aged bullies don't often get sued as the burden of proof is too large).  So, with that said, as cheffy said to the Admiral, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the matter.  I believe (and I've said this ad infinitum in this thread) I should have a reasonable expectation that others' behaviours shouldn't impact me - in this case, posing a meaningful increase in risk of catching a deadly communicable disease.  You (Stadler) and I have debated this enough times that it simply should be left at 'we'll agree to disagree'.

[jingle.boy]

Eating horse pills from the feed store? Moron. Taking it in a responsible measure, despite no prescription? Not a moron.

It does beg the question ... how does one come to the conclusion that taking Ivermectin is a reasonable thing to do to combat COVID, but taking a vaccine is not?

Approved for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Researched and studied and peer reviewed for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Long term research?  Vax - no; IV - no
100s of millions of real-world data points available?  Vax - yes; IV - no

Under those four criteria alone, I just can't wrap my head around someone being anti-vax, but pro Ivermectin.  Under what criteria does Ivermectin come out on top?

[Ben_Jamin]

Eating horse pills from the feed store? Moron. Taking it in a responsible measure, despite no prescription? Not a moron.

It does beg the question ... how does one come to the conclusion that taking Ivermectin is a reasonable thing to do to combat COVID, but taking a vaccine is not?

Approved for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Researched and studied and peer reviewed for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Long term research?  Vax - no; IV - no
100s of millions of real-world data points available?  Vax - yes; IV - no

Under those four criteria alone, I just can't wrap my head around someone being anti-vax, but pro Ivermectin.  Under what criteria does Ivermectin come out on top?

Distrust of the Healthcare System definetely plays a role. Then there are personal bad experiences of that healthcare system that forms a sense of distrust in those involved, the doctors, nurses, the ones in charge.

It's also likely because of the rollout, and the way it's being administered. People just don't like being bullied into doing things they don't want to do. Some people will be okay with being told in that sort of manner and will abide and comply, but others will not. A great example are the issues related to how people interact with police officers and the consequences that happen because they don't comply and don't want to be bullied to comply or abide.

And just like the unvaccinated, who is getting the blunt of the blame? Not the ones that are not abiding or complying to the authority bullying.

It's like how people know foods are bad for them, yet they eat them anyways and end up having discomfort and tolerating it because that food just looked so good.

[El Barto]

Eating horse pills from the feed store? Moron. Taking it in a responsible measure, despite no prescription? Not a moron.

It does beg the question ... how does one come to the conclusion that taking Ivermectin is a reasonable thing to do to combat COVID, but taking a vaccine is not?

Approved for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Researched and studied and peer reviewed for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Long term research?  Vax - no; IV - no
100s of millions of real-world data points available?  Vax - yes; IV - no

Under those four criteria alone, I just can't wrap my head around someone being anti-vax, but pro Ivermectin.  Under what criteria does Ivermectin come out on top?

I don't subscribe to this theory, so I'm right there with ya, but I do have some answers. Mistrust of the FDA is certainly one. Ivermectin has been prescribed globally for other conditions. It is approved by not only the FDA, but other governing bodies for human use and is a known commodity. Its designers won a Nobel prize, and it's considered an essential medicine by the WHO. MRNA vaccines were rushed through, and were being prescribed under an EUA. Plus, as Darkshade keeps pointing out, halfway correctly, it's easy to mistrust the motivations here. And while I don't agree with his conspiracy theory, it is hard to notice that it's been deliberately misrepresented as some hare-brained bit of quackery by the media. That's the sort of thing that tends to make me suspicious.

Also, the fact that it has RNA in the name probably contributes a scare factor. I suspect that if they'd just branded it as Mernarid© we'd have a slightly higher percentage of vaccinated.

Overall, it doesn't make much sense to me. Take the vaccine, and if you still get sick, then maybe have Ivermectin in your quiver of things to try. I'd rather not need it than have to roll the dice with it, but I wouldn't be too worried about throwing snake-eyes with it if the time came.

[hefdaddy42]

This thread is awesome.

 

It's not really, though. To me, it's kind of sad.  It's pretty much what I've been writing about for going on two years now, writ large for all of us to see.   Party 1 bitches and moans about how Party 2 isn't doing what we want them to (with obligatory mocking of perfectly reasonable arguments like "personal responsibility") then when a member of Party 2 engages, it's more mocking and challenging and belittling - even if subtle - and Party 1 wonders why Party 2 isn't playing ball.  Oh, we're polite about it, but there's a lot more use of the word "crazy" than should be if it was a good faith conversation.

My tongue was in cheek, for the record.

What I don't get is why people are on the ivermectin train.

I think I know this one.

Because they are morons.

That's not really fair. While this is an off-label use, and the verdict is still out on whether or not it's effective, it does have promise and is well tolerated. If you buy horse pills from Sneed's Seed and Feed then you're probably an idiot. If you're buying human-grade Ivermectin from a reputable pharmacy then you're really just exploring all of your options. My issue is both sides wrapping it up in more partisan bullshit. It's neither the miracle drug that big-pharma is hiding from us, nor sketchy horse de-wormer.

It's fair.  The people taking it are almost all buying the horse-portion from tractor supply and self-medicating, not taking the much smaller human-sized dose that would be prescribed by their doctor, if their doctor would do such a thing.  It's like taking peanut butter for a sore knee.

What I don't get is why the people who are on the Ivermectin bandwagon are terrified of a vaccine that's demonstrably safe and effective in favor of something that's demonstrably neither. I'm also annoyed by the complete avoidance of science insofar as it's concerned. You don't get to take Ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and antiestrogens, and then say that Ivermectin kills Covid.

Yeah, that's why they are morons.

Every time I hear "morons" and "idiots" and "crazy" I hear Richard Rawlings' "whoo!" in my head.

That's not a good thing.

I have no fucking clue who that is.

I suppose you don't think anyone are morons, idiots, or crazy?  At least, in conversational language?

[Stadler]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

I'm not sure EXACTLY what the question is, but even so, it depends.    For me - and I don't mean "my opinion", but rather, my knowledge of the law and concept of forcing behavior of others - the key words are "directly because".   Some yahoo in Missouri not getting the vaccine is not "direct cause" to my kid having COVID in the same way that, say, running over them with a car would be.   Even if some yahoo in Hartford, CT doesn't get the vaccine, and there's COVID in my school, it's not a "directly because", since we KNOW that you can get COVID with the vaccine and many vaccinated are asymptomatic (statistics don't matter here, so don't reply "but the ODDS!"; we're talking direct causation not probabilities).   

Same with bullying; if Kid A (haha, I hate Radiohead!) comes up and punched my kid in the balls and takes his lunch money, then Kid A ought to be punished.  Do I necessarily think that all other kids now have to act a certain way because my kid took one in the pouch?  No.

No, but I suspect you (and your kid) have a reasonable expectation that a litany of other kids aren't going to simply go around punching balls and stealing sammie's.  How about when Kid A (and/or B, C, D and E) is (are) mentally bullying your kid, and there's no direct/tangible/physical *evidence* to prove it?  In my world, that's a standard that is unacceptable.  And most school boards would agree.

I don't follow this; I mean, I honestly don't understand what you're saying (that's on me, not you).  I do have a reasonable expectation that that won't happen, but not a RIGHT to DEMAND it not happen, nor the RIGHT to force people to not do it proactively.  I can only rely on the punishment meted out according to the programs in place if it does happen.  As for Kids B, C, D, and E and there's no tangible evidence to prove it... I'm not sure what you're referring to that is unacceptable.  I was in this with my stepdaughter, and am in it now with my stepson.  Hell, even his own FATHER doesn't agree it's bullying (because he's trying to keep him in the school close to him rather than go to the school closest to us), so what happens is they monitor and separate where possible, and if one of the kids crosses the line we're back in punishment mode.

On the whole of your post, you have some fair points I'll concede - the individualized direct causality measurement isn't fair or appropriate.  But while we're at it, let's come off of the legal/litigation topic (because I'm quite certain school-aged bullies don't often get sued as the burden of proof is too large).  So, with that said, as cheffy said to the Admiral, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the matter.  I believe (and I've said this ad infinitum in this thread) I should have a reasonable expectation that others' behaviours shouldn't impact me - in this case, posing a meaningful increase in risk of catching a deadly communicable disease.  You (Stadler) and I have debated this enough times that it simply should be left at 'we'll agree to disagree'.

But this is a point that comes up a LOT and never QUITE gets addressed.  I believe I should date Margot Robbie.  I believe I am the handsomest man here (and more attractive than most of the women).  I believe I am the second smartest person here (Adami is smartest, but he will disagree with me on principle, and so I'm back to number one).  I believe I am the best athlete here.  So where does that get me if only some or none of you agree with me?  I cannot force you to agree with me and we cannot pass laws to make you agree with me. 

We can agree to disagree, but we're not on equal sides of a teeter-totter here, balancing each other out.  I AM right, unfortunately, since there is a framework for this stuff.  In practical measure, there is NO standard in the system we live in where any one person is given the expectation that they not be harmed.  There are remedial measures if they ARE harmed, but very few, if any, of the protections of rights in our democracy (I'm now taking about America, because that is what I know) that is PREVENTATIVE in nature. Innocent until proven guilty; it's built into the program.    Else we would jail anyone that abused a cat on the grounds that they MIGHT be a serial killer later on.  Else we would jail anyone that huffed glue as a kid on the grounds that they MIGHT be a drunk driver later on. 

[King Postwhore]

Stads, you are the best Thesaurus on DTF.

[lonestar]

Stads, you are the best Thesaurus on DTF.

 

You owe me an iced tea fucker. And a new shirt.

[Stadler]

Eating horse pills from the feed store? Moron. Taking it in a responsible measure, despite no prescription? Not a moron.

It does beg the question ... how does one come to the conclusion that taking Ivermectin is a reasonable thing to do to combat COVID, but taking a vaccine is not?

Approved for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Researched and studied and peer reviewed for that use?  Vax - yes; IV - no
Long term research?  Vax - no; IV - no
100s of millions of real-world data points available?  Vax - yes; IV - no

Under those four criteria alone, I just can't wrap my head around someone being anti-vax, but pro Ivermectin.  Under what criteria does Ivermectin come out on top?

Plenty of people opt for the reactive rather than proactive.  Anyone who says "I'm young, I'm healthy, I don't need healthcare" is taking this position (I've done it).   Anyone who says "I don't need a will, I'll wait till I'm retired" is taking this position.   Ah, fuck it, I'm not going to fix that oil leak; I'll just add a quart when I need to.  Any woman out there ever think "well, I COULD demand a condom, but... eh, he said he'll pull out, so I'll deal with it tomorrow."?

f nothing else, it makes a certain logic:  if you think either one could - COULD, not WOULD - hurt you, and you take the vaccine and still get sick, you're taking BOTH.  If you say screw it, and just see if you get sick - not EVERY unvaccinated person has or will get COVID - and take the Ivermectin, you're only getting one dose of "bad".   (There have been 42 million cases or thereabouts, and 150 million unvaccinated at this point).     

It's not all that odd, actually.

[Stadler]

I have no fucking clue who that is.

I suppose you don't think anyone are morons, idiots, or crazy?  At least, in conversational language?

Whenever he gets one over on someone else (selling cars), he goes "Wooooo!" like David Lee Roth and points.  I tried to find a clip of it but no dice (except for a tequila ad). 

I think MOST people are morons, idiots or crazy.  What I THINK doesn't matter.  If I'm trying to understand someone and more importantly trying to convince someone of an alternate path, then no, it doesn't come up.  And before you say "well I'm here, they're not, it doesn't matter", I say it DOES matter.  Can we just use the N-word if there are no African Americans around?  Of course not.  if I had a dime for every PM I've ever gotten here or at MP to the effect of "well, I'd love to participate in P/R but I'd be in over my head" I'd be, well, buying Richard Rawlings' tequila.   And part of that is people not wanting to be called morons, idiots or crazy if someone disagrees with their idea.

[Stadler]

Stads, you are the best Thesaurus on DTF.

Call me Roget. 

[King Postwhore]

Stads, you are the best Thesaurus on DTF.

 

You owe me an iced tea fucker. And a new shirt.

Cheffie Poo ring a bell?

Stads, you are the best Thesaurus on DTF.

Call me Roget. 

Ha!

[darkshade]

FDA approval means little to me, either way, especially without long-term data.

I suspect this is where we disagree, because while we definitely could agree on a number of things, chiefly: corporate boards that run companies like Pfizer being driven by self-interest and profit alone; the government being corrupt; regulatory bodies being imperfect and inconsistent; the media being out of control, and so on, at the end of the day, it's still the best bet to stick with the guidance. Because what is the alternative?

I'm sure we all have tolerances for how closely we follow the guidance. There were things my family did that were not recommended, as I'm sure the same is true for you and your family. But that vaccine? That's the best shot we've got at getting back to normal. At this point, even if the whole thing were one big lie, just to line Pfizer's pockets, I'd take the damn thing, just to get it over with. Because what else can you do? *I* don't believe it's a big lie, in fact I know plenty of people who've been negatively affected, some even fatally. But, just sayin'...

I totally get where you're coming from... that the powers-that-be lie to us when they're at their worst, and even when they're at their best, fail to stop the myriad of incentives from causing terrible chain reactions that lead humanity down paths it would not have deliberately chosen. Sadly, change doesn't happen overnight, and improvements come slowly...  this has been our species from Day Zero. It just takes time.

Did you watch/listen to the Jimmy Dore clip I posted with Dr. Robert Malone on page 55 of this thread? He discusses that inquiry, and his answer may be the solution. He said something along the lines of "we won't be able to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic" and talked about the reasons why, much of it was natural exposure for every human being is necessary, and why the vaccines won't work long term for the entire population of the planet. If he's wrong, I'd like to hear why from another member of the medical community by dissecting his reasoning, not just "well, he's wrong" or "well, he's a quack".

[darkshade]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

This is exactly what I was going to post.  When someone else's behaviors affect my kids' health, we have a problem.

Does covid mimic a bad chest cold?  Yes.  I was reasonably certain that he didn't have covid (my daughter tested negative a week before, and he probably picked up her cold).  But he'd also been at preschool twice this week and could have picked it up from a kid there.  Is there a good chance that kid's family doesn't adhere to covid mitigations (mask wearing when required, being vaccinated) based on where I live?  Yes.   

It pisses me off so much to see these parents holding anti-mask/anti vax protests in the surrounding suburbs while I am driving a sick little boy to the hospital and while my wife is up all night long worrying that he could have covid.  It's absolutely not fair to others to knowingly disregard public health measures.  I know covid is here to stay and once my kids can get vaccinated, I'll let up on this belief.  But until then, I have every right to be angry at others for their behavior when it can potentially impact my kid.  We have worked so hard to keep our family healthy.  My wife felt like a failure yesterday when she thought he might have covid, on her birthday no less.  He's 3 - half of his life has been spent either staying closer to home or wearing a mask, so a cold just took root in his chest with his immune system not having to do much work for the last year.  Had that been covid, he might have been in really, really bad shape.

You have to consider that mask mandates (AFAIK) aren't mandating the masks that actually do anything, like the N95s with a filter. They're just telling people "wear a mask dammit". Most people walking around with a mask on are either wearing surgical masks which do next to nothing, or a cloth mask or self-made one, which do absolutely nothing at preventing spread. So unless the government/schools are mandating the right kind of masks, it's all quite silly.

[hunnus2000]

I have no fucking clue who that is.

I suppose you don't think anyone are morons, idiots, or crazy?  At least, in conversational language?

Whenever he gets one over on someone else (selling cars), he goes "Wooooo!" like David Lee Roth and points.  I tried to find a clip of it but no dice (except for a tequila ad). 

I think MOST people are morons, idiots or crazy.  What I THINK doesn't matter.  If I'm trying to understand someone and more importantly trying to convince someone of an alternate path, then no, it doesn't come up.  And before you say "well I'm here, they're not, it doesn't matter", I say it DOES matter.  Can we just use the N-word if there are no African Americans around?  Of course not.  if I had a dime for every PM I've ever gotten here or at MP to the effect of "well, I'd love to participate in P/R but I'd be in over my head" I'd be, well, buying Richard Rawlings' tequila.   And part of that is people not wanting to be called morons, idiots or crazy if someone disagrees with their idea.

Hey I've met Richard Rawlings - nicest guy in the world and won the Cannonball Run twice - in a truck! 

[darkshade]

I’m vaccinated and I tend to trust the scientists…but something that’s being hinted at really resonates with me. Doctors parroting what they are told.

Every doctor I’ve seen in the better part of the last two decades basically listens to your symptoms, takes your personal info and vitals, and punches it all into WebMD, and then they do what it tells them. It tends to make people feel like they are just part of a machine. The whole process just makes you feel like you’re one step closer to that scene in Idiocracy.

Things like that make people think being a doctor isn't some specialized skill either, that anyone could do it (which isn't true, but things like that make people feel that way) or that doctors are just tools of the establishment and they exist to do their bidding, like cops.

[El Barto]

"My kid being sick" is not a standard by which others need to operate, and in fact, sometimes - SOMETIMES - it's the others who have the cooler head and the broader vision to maintain perspective.

Question to you .... if the reason my kid is sick is directly BECAUSE of the way that others operate, does that change your stance.  Alternatively, let's replace "sick" with "bullied"... does the same perspective or standard apply?

This is exactly what I was going to post.  When someone else's behaviors affect my kids' health, we have a problem.

Does covid mimic a bad chest cold?  Yes.  I was reasonably certain that he didn't have covid (my daughter tested negative a week before, and he probably picked up her cold).  But he'd also been at preschool twice this week and could have picked it up from a kid there.  Is there a good chance that kid's family doesn't adhere to covid mitigations (mask wearing when required, being vaccinated) based on where I live?  Yes.   

It pisses me off so much to see these parents holding anti-mask/anti vax protests in the surrounding suburbs while I am driving a sick little boy to the hospital and while my wife is up all night long worrying that he could have covid.  It's absolutely not fair to others to knowingly disregard public health measures.  I know covid is here to stay and once my kids can get vaccinated, I'll let up on this belief.  But until then, I have every right to be angry at others for their behavior when it can potentially impact my kid.  We have worked so hard to keep our family healthy.  My wife felt like a failure yesterday when she thought he might have covid, on her birthday no less.  He's 3 - half of his life has been spent either staying closer to home or wearing a mask, so a cold just took root in his chest with his immune system not having to do much work for the last year.  Had that been covid, he might have been in really, really bad shape.

You have to consider that mask mandates (AFAIK) aren't mandating the masks that actually do anything, like the N95s with a filter. They're just telling people "wear a mask dammit". Most people walking around with a mask on are either wearing surgical masks which do next to nothing, or a cloth mask or self-made one, which do absolutely nothing at preventing spread. So unless the government/schools are mandating the right kind of masks, it's all quite silly.

Doctors don't wear masks during surgery to protect themselves. They where them to protect the patients. Same rules apply. If everybody wore masks we could cut transmission by a significant amount. No, it wouldn't cure the pandemic, but it would decrease the size of outbreaks. If 40% of the population refuse to wear them then you're right, they're meaningless. Joke's on us, I guess.   

And for what it's worth, I wear an N95 mask for my own benefit.

[El Barto]

FDA approval means little to me, either way, especially without long-term data.

I suspect this is where we disagree, because while we definitely could agree on a number of things, chiefly: corporate boards that run companies like Pfizer being driven by self-interest and profit alone; the government being corrupt; regulatory bodies being imperfect and inconsistent; the media being out of control, and so on, at the end of the day, it's still the best bet to stick with the guidance. Because what is the alternative?

I'm sure we all have tolerances for how closely we follow the guidance. There were things my family did that were not recommended, as I'm sure the same is true for you and your family. But that vaccine? That's the best shot we've got at getting back to normal. At this point, even if the whole thing were one big lie, just to line Pfizer's pockets, I'd take the damn thing, just to get it over with. Because what else can you do? *I* don't believe it's a big lie, in fact I know plenty of people who've been negatively affected, some even fatally. But, just sayin'...

I totally get where you're coming from... that the powers-that-be lie to us when they're at their worst, and even when they're at their best, fail to stop the myriad of incentives from causing terrible chain reactions that lead humanity down paths it would not have deliberately chosen. Sadly, change doesn't happen overnight, and improvements come slowly...  this has been our species from Day Zero. It just takes time.

Did you watch/listen to the Jimmy Dore clip I posted with Dr. Robert Malone on page 55 of this thread? He discusses that inquiry, and his answer may be the solution. He said something along the lines of "we won't be able to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic" and talked about the reasons why, much of it was natural exposure for every human being is necessary, and why the vaccines won't work long term for the entire population of the planet. If he's wrong, I'd like to hear why from another member of the medical community by dissecting his reasoning, not just "well, he's wrong" or "well, he's a quack".

And did he cover the bit I referred to (and posted a study for last week) about vaccines covering a broader spectrum of mutations than natural immunity, which will typically only cover the source infection? If every single person on the planet got Covid tomorrow, it wouldn't solve the problem. It'd just explode the number of mutations overnight, rather than gradually over time. I'm not a doctor, but the logic suggests that if every person got vaccinated tomorrow, the creation of new mutations might actually cease at some point, as the number of available walking Petri dishes was slashed to a tiny fraction of what there are now.

[lonestar]

FDA advisory panel soundly shoots down booster shots for most Americans.

[darkshade]

FDA approval means little to me, either way, especially without long-term data.

I suspect this is where we disagree, because while we definitely could agree on a number of things, chiefly: corporate boards that run companies like Pfizer being driven by self-interest and profit alone; the government being corrupt; regulatory bodies being imperfect and inconsistent; the media being out of control, and so on, at the end of the day, it's still the best bet to stick with the guidance. Because what is the alternative?

I'm sure we all have tolerances for how closely we follow the guidance. There were things my family did that were not recommended, as I'm sure the same is true for you and your family. But that vaccine? That's the best shot we've got at getting back to normal. At this point, even if the whole thing were one big lie, just to line Pfizer's pockets, I'd take the damn thing, just to get it over with. Because what else can you do? *I* don't believe it's a big lie, in fact I know plenty of people who've been negatively affected, some even fatally. But, just sayin'...

I totally get where you're coming from... that the powers-that-be lie to us when they're at their worst, and even when they're at their best, fail to stop the myriad of incentives from causing terrible chain reactions that lead humanity down paths it would not have deliberately chosen. Sadly, change doesn't happen overnight, and improvements come slowly...  this has been our species from Day Zero. It just takes time.

Did you watch/listen to the Jimmy Dore clip I posted with Dr. Robert Malone on page 55 of this thread? He discusses that inquiry, and his answer may be the solution. He said something along the lines of "we won't be able to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic" and talked about the reasons why, much of it was natural exposure for every human being is necessary, and why the vaccines won't work long term for the entire population of the planet. If he's wrong, I'd like to hear why from another member of the medical community by dissecting his reasoning, not just "well, he's wrong" or "well, he's a quack".

And did he cover the bit I referred to (and posted a study for last week) about vaccines covering a broader spectrum of mutations than natural immunity, which will typically only cover the source infection? If every single person on the planet got Covid tomorrow, it wouldn't solve the problem. It'd just explode the number of mutations overnight, rather than gradually over time. I'm not a doctor, but the logic suggests that if every person got vaccinated tomorrow, the creation of new mutations might actually cease at some point, as the number of available walking Petri dishes was slashed to a tiny fraction of what there are now.

From what I recall, he explained that the virus finds a way around the vaccines, and that the vaccinated wind up being the super spreaders.
I could be mixing a statement or two up, I'll have to re-watch soon.

Everyone should just watch the interview, so you're not hearing it from me, since I'm not a medical professional.