Coronavirus Thread v.2

[jingle.boy]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

[Ben_Jamin]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

The point is that they did not do a large enough trial to prove to the vaccine hesitant these do not have any harm done at all. That's all he wanted. Which is what they should have done originally. And is what some of the vaccine hesitant also want as well, to be shown that data that proves it to them.

Which they requested and these doctors couldn't provide the information because it hasn't been done, and they can't prove it. Which shows that they actually ask more questions and are more concerned and aware of the risk of covid and it's effects more so than the vaccinated that voluntarily rolled-up, and likely did not ask these questions that the vaccine hesitant asked and ask for data that proves what the doctors say.

[Ben_Jamin]

And another doctor later went on to talk about this conclusion of booster vaccinations...

"Booster vaccinations may offset "Social Hesitancy" of those who fear social interactions with anyone else and are thus isolated."

Keyword there is Fear. Many people have high Social Hesitancy, and this is one term that I have not heard discussed and talked about. And I feel this should also be addressed with how this pandemic has effected people's mentality.

[King Postwhore]

In a pandemic,  you don't have time for years of trials Ben.  You have to get the vaccine out right away once they knew it's impact on the virus and on the recipients.

Honestly I don't think the % is high on those you can change. Doesn't mean they shouldn't try because any minds changed is a good thing.  I just think many dug in and will no change their minds.

[jingle.boy]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

The point is that they did not do a large enough trial to prove to the vaccine hesitant these do not have any harm done at all. That's all he wanted. Which is what they should have done originally. And is what some of the vaccine hesitant also want as well, to be shown that data that proves it to them.

Which they requested and these doctors couldn't provide the information because it hasn't been done, and they can't prove it. Which shows that they actually ask more questions and are more concerned and aware of the risk of covid and it's effects more so than the vaccinated that voluntarily rolled-up, and likely did not ask these questions that the vaccine hesitant asked and ask for data that proves what the doctors say.

At this point, 10 months and 100s of millions of doses delivered proves more than any controlled trials might.

[Ben_Jamin]

Then here's Dr. Peter Doshi talking about doctors licenses being revoked if they speak about any covid vaccine misinformation, and how it's concerning when there is still clearly many unknowns...It's better if you just watch and listen. I could type it up all up for you again.

https://youtu.be/bQevYc2jX7Y?t=15779

[Ben_Jamin]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

The point is that they did not do a large enough trial to prove to the vaccine hesitant these do not have any harm done at all. That's all he wanted. Which is what they should have done originally. And is what some of the vaccine hesitant also want as well, to be shown that data that proves it to them.

Which they requested and these doctors couldn't provide the information because it hasn't been done, and they can't prove it. Which shows that they actually ask more questions and are more concerned and aware of the risk of covid and it's effects more so than the vaccinated that voluntarily rolled-up, and likely did not ask these questions that the vaccine hesitant asked and ask for data that proves what the doctors say.

At this point, 10 months and 100s of millions of doses delivered proves more than any controlled trials might.

Did you listen to this FDA commission meeting?

All I am doing is relaying what was said by the Doctors that spoke at this meeting. So you're calling those doctors opinions as bullshit, not mine.

[lonestar]

Dr. Joseph Fraiman says, "I know many think the vaccine hesitant are dumb or just misinformed. That's not at all what I've seen, in fact typically independent of education level, the vaccine hesitant I've met in the ER are more familiar with vaccine studies and more aware of their own Covid risk than the vaccinated."

"FDA committee meets to debate and vote on Covid booster shots for the general public — 9/17/21"
https://youtu.be/bQevYc2jX7Y?t=14963

Did you guys see this...Very, very interesting discussions being made by the FDA committee. 

The vaccine hesitant also account for 99% of the people on ventilators right now.

[jingle.boy]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

The point is that they did not do a large enough trial to prove to the vaccine hesitant these do not have any harm done at all. That's all he wanted. Which is what they should have done originally. And is what some of the vaccine hesitant also want as well, to be shown that data that proves it to them.

Which they requested and these doctors couldn't provide the information because it hasn't been done, and they can't prove it. Which shows that they actually ask more questions and are more concerned and aware of the risk of covid and it's effects more so than the vaccinated that voluntarily rolled-up, and likely did not ask these questions that the vaccine hesitant asked and ask for data that proves what the doctors say.

At this point, 10 months and 100s of millions of doses delivered proves more than any controlled trials might.

Did you listen to this FDA commission meeting?

All I am doing is relaying what was said by the Doctors that spoke at this meeting. So you're calling those doctors opinions as bullshit, not mine.

No, I didn’t wade thru an 8+ hour video.  So do me the favour of linking the exact time stamp of that video where any qualified individual states that the ‘vaccine hesitant’ are “more concerned and aware of the risks of COVID and it’s effects” than those that have taken the vaccine.

[Ben_Jamin]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

The point is that they did not do a large enough trial to prove to the vaccine hesitant these do not have any harm done at all. That's all he wanted. Which is what they should have done originally. And is what some of the vaccine hesitant also want as well, to be shown that data that proves it to them.

Which they requested and these doctors couldn't provide the information because it hasn't been done, and they can't prove it. Which shows that they actually ask more questions and are more concerned and aware of the risk of covid and it's effects more so than the vaccinated that voluntarily rolled-up, and likely did not ask these questions that the vaccine hesitant asked and ask for data that proves what the doctors say.

At this point, 10 months and 100s of millions of doses delivered proves more than any controlled trials might.

Did you listen to this FDA commission meeting?

All I am doing is relaying what was said by the Doctors that spoke at this meeting. So you're calling those doctors opinions as bullshit, not mine.

No, I didn’t wade thru an 8+ hour video.  So do me the favour of linking the exact time stamp of that video where any qualified individual states that the ‘vaccine hesitant’ are “more concerned and aware of the risks of COVID and it’s effects” than those that have taken the vaccine.

Just go back a page and it's right there at the bottom. I even typed the the quote up. And it is time-stamped.

Although he states....ones OWN risk of Covid. Everybody does not have the same risk of Covid, that's why if you are concerned of your health, you should have been going to your doctor so you can for sure assess your own risk of how severe your symptoms of Covid will be. And the other doctors they have speak have their presentations to show who is more at risk and who is not.

[jingle.boy]

Ok, fair. This one doctor did say that. And yes, I still call BS. This is his *opinion*. Unless he’s done his own study on tha matter, this is his opinion only. There’s lots of holes to be pointed out in his commentary, but my point still stands. His perception of the knowledge his ER patients have about their COVID risk didn’t prevent them from getting COVID.

He kinda lost his credibility when he leads with the stat that “ where I work” (New Orleans) is over 65% unvaccinated.

https://covidactnow.org/us/louisiana-la/county/orleans_parish/?s=23181238

66.8% vaccinated with at least one dose; 58% fully vaccinated.  I tend to be Leary of trusting the opinions of anyone who can’t even get factual data right.

[lonestar]

And it still doesn't change the fact that their unvaccinated status makes them vastly more succeptible to severe COVID disease, and that almost every person dying of it these days is unvaccinated, well researched or not.

[King Postwhore]

98% of doctors say get the vaccine.   Hey, here's the 2% saying don't take it so the majority is Wrong!

People only read what they want to believe or see

[lonestar]

98% of doctors say get the vaccine.   Hey, here's the 2% saying don't take it so the majority is Wrong!

People only read what they want to believe or see

Or whatever fits into their current argument. Or whatever makes them seem edgy and cool.

[King Postwhore]

I don't think edgy and cool. I think they believe that they don't need the vaccine based on who they follow.

[lonestar]

I don't think edgy and cool. I think they believe that they don't need the vaccine based on who they follow.

I think there's a certain sect of online antivaxxers that do it just for the edge, to stir trouble, to troll, or however you want to put it. Granted, there's a sect of online dipshits for pretty much every scenario under the sun.

[jingle.boy]

To be fair, in the two minutes of the video that I listened to, his fundamental premise was asking the FDA with help to reduce vaccine hesitancy. I’m not sure this dr. was advocating for the anti-vaccine crowd, but some of the claims I heard him make of them left me scratching my head.

[King Postwhore]

Like I said, hard to change those minds who are completely against the vaccine. 

[Cool Chris]

I wish we could get real data on what percentage of those vaccinated are "vaccine hesitant" and what percentage is those who just don't like people (meaning the government) telling them what they should do.

[Stadler]

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).

On the rest of your post ... we'll agree to disagree, including the part where you say you ARE right.  You may be, but there are points where I may be right.

Before it gets blown out of proportion, there are a LOT of things you are right on, and I am simply saying on that ONE POINT I am right.  Not across the board.  Just that concept that there is this objective "right" to not be harmed.  You can believe it to be so, you can want it to be so, but it just ISN'T so.  And I don't point this out to be a douche, but to say if one is going to make decisions, one should make decisions the way the world IS, not the way they want it to be.   

Isn't this essentially the argument that all of you are making against Darkshade?  Why is it different for for him than for you?

[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.

Is there anything you don't have a counter-point to?    You make good points, even if they're largely irrelevant in the face of a global pandemic. My point on this matter, is that the arguments against vaccination are largely also arguments against something like Ivermectin, but people are still willing to explore the latter.  That's what I don't understand.  I get some people are procrastinators - at the expense of there own lives and livelihood.  That wasn't my point.

But if that was my point, I guess I'm just one of those kinds of people that subscribes to the notion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - literally in this sense.  I'm not sure I've ever heard the saying 'why take a ounce of prevention when an a pound of cure is gonna be a bigger risk than reward'.

C'mon; there are plenty of things I don't have a counter-point to.  There's no need for the ad hominem.   This is a very specific thread talking about a very specific concept, and there seems to be a lot of... I won't say "bullying", but certainly taking for granted a certain point of view, and while Darkshade seems recalcitrant to some of the ideas here, it's not like everyone else ISN'T.  El Barto made some SOLID points on Ivermectin, that counter the narrative that "people that take that are crack pot, bat-shit, tin foil crazy" and yet I don't see a whole lot of "wow, I stand corrected" among those pushing the accepted narrative. 

But to the topic at hand, you asked for a reason, I gave it to you and you seemed to reject it.  The vaccine and Ivermectin are NOT interchangeable to some people.  I personally can see them as very different, actually.  It's like those people that pay for the three-year service plan on an appliance, and those that say "that's stupid".  And while it's good that one does understand - for analytical purposes - it's not NECESSARY that you understand.  It's not you.  I don't understand a lot of things, some controversial, some not.  But to "tolerate", I don't have to.

[Stadler]

surgical masks which do next to nothing,

Pretty sure most every single surgeon in the world would disagree with you.  Edit... Bart addressed it more thoroughly than I will.

You really don't know much about these things do you?  I'd try to share with you the purpose of masking is, but I'm pretty sure you're not open to changing you mind on the matter.

Don't bother, the only thing you'll succeed in doing is adding damage to your eventual carpal tunnel.

I haven't really determined if he's open to receiving new data yet. My hunch is no, but I'm not ruling it out. I do know that he's been respectful and presented his arguments reasonably well. I wouldn't be engaging with him otherwise. I see no reason to be rude in dismissing him out of hand. He's conducting himself far better than most of his mindset, so I'm content to treat him better than most of those numbskulls.

This post isn't totally unfair, but I do have to ask.... how high are you right now? 

He doesn't have to be high.  I personally am very proud - not the right word - of his post and his approach.  This incessant need to "slam people we don't agree with" has got to stop, and where better than right here in our little corner of the world?   Unless you're one of those people that just assumes that "because they think it, it must be right!" (and they exist, including here) we can learn something from everyone, even it's just the best way to educated those that maybe aren't contemplating all the facts on the table.

[Stadler]

Stader repeating himself deleted.

[Stadler]

Stadler repeating himself deleted.

[jingle.boy]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

No.  Wrong by YOUR STANDARD (that "getting COVID" is the only risk worth measuring).   There's a big difference.

What other risk is greater than one's health?

Given the HEALTH risk and statistical probabilities of contracting COVID vs the HEALTH risk and statistical probabilities of experiencing side effects of the vaccine, I simply can't wrap my head around the mindset that it's safer to not get vaccinated. 

Given how many people end up hospitalized from COVID, vs hospitalized from the vaccine (whether because of it, or still contracting COVID), the data seems to support that - at a macro level - it is not a safer HEALTH option to not be vaccinated.  And fwiw, from all that I've read and watched, the actual number of people that are allergic to the vaccine, or compromised to the extent that it is medically unsafe to take it is a minuscule fraction of a percent of the population.

[Stadler]

Lot of good all that familiarity with studies did those people in the ER. They still came to the conclusion that NOT getting vaccinated was a safer measure than getting vaccinated. Apparently they were wrong.

No.  Wrong by YOUR STANDARD (that "getting COVID" is the only risk worth measuring).   There's a big difference.

What other risk is greater than one's health?

Given the HEALTH risk and statistical probabilities of contracting COVID vs the HEALTH risk and statistical probabilities of experiencing side effects of the vaccine, I simply can't wrap my head around the mindset that it's safer to not get vaccinated. 

Given how many people end up hospitalized from COVID, vs hospitalized from the vaccine (whether because of it, or still contracting COVID), the data seems to support that - at a macro level - it is not a safer HEALTH option to not be vaccinated.  And fwiw, from all that I've read and watched, the actual number of people that are allergic to the vaccine, or compromised to the extent that it is medically unsafe to take it is a minuscule fraction of a percent of the population.

Depends on what you value and what you fear.  My own health might be number one, but it might also be second to the well-being of my family, for example.  But even if you're right, and one's health is the standard, that's the point:  "getting COVID" isn't the ONLY way that standard is not met.   It's really depressing to keep reading these posts that just ASSUME that these people have the same mindset, outlook and risk tolerance as you (collective).   I just don't assume that people that forego the vaccine that then get the virus are automatically "Wow, DTF was right; should have got the shot!"   

And while I'm not personally advocating not getting the vaccine (I've got mine), the numbers are a bit... not misleading, but targeted.  You ARE more likely to get sick and get sicker if you are unvaccinated, but here in the States, there are still 150 million unvaccinated, and only about 43 million cases, many of whom were sick either before vaccines or are break-through cases.   Pick number: 43M? 30M? 20M? cases that occurred AFTER vaccines were widely available, and are in the unvaccinated.  At 43M (not possible, since we know there are breakthrough cases), that's only a quarter of unvaccinated will ever get sick.   At 20M (possible, but not likely), only about 13% will get sick (again, assuming that ALL the future sick are unvaccinated). 

This is more stark globally.   230M cases, roughly, out of a population of 7.4B.   Your chances of getting this, vaccinated or not, is something like 3%.   IF you're skeptical about the long term effects of a vaccine, which is not an unreasonable position, even if there is no evidence NOW of any long term effects, then these numbers don't necessarily seem to imply "no vaccine" = "death sentence", expect in very specific demographics.

We had about 1.8M cases and 20k deaths in the last 14 days.  Assuming they are all unvaccinated (they're not) that's 1% and 0.01% respectively of the unvaccinated.   Assuming you're scared of the vaccine, is "0.01%" enough to sway you?   Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly not "bat-shit crazy" to think it might not.

[Skeever]

Looks like we're back to a 2K per day 7-Day average.
Will there ever be any end to this thing?

[hefdaddy42]

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.

So, and just so I'm clear, you never vocally question the mental acuity of shitty drivers that you get stuck behind?

 

[jingle.boy]

It's really depressing to keep reading these posts that just ASSUME that these people have the same mindset, outlook and risk tolerance as you (collective).   I just don't assume that people that forego the vaccine that then get the virus are automatically "Wow, DTF was right; should have got the shot!"

Quite literally, I neither said or implied any of that.  I said that I cannot wrap my head around that mindset.  I know that people have that mindset, but I just don't get it.  And while they may not have said "DTF was right", I've read/watched more than a few articles/interviews where ER/ICU patients very much DO express regret and/or ask for the vaccine.  It seems (not for the first time), you are applying some of your own biases around what you think other people believe, to statements that literally don't say what you interpret them to be saying.

This is more stark globally.   230M cases, roughly, out of a population of 7.4B.   Your chances of getting this, vaccinated or not, is something like 3%. 

  C'mon man, you know this is a horseshit, poor man's way of calculating the "chance of getting it" metric.  You're smarter than this.  As you quite often point out on any given analysis, there are far more variables involved to come to this conclusion beyond global population, and global case count.  I can't link the image (as it was sent to me in a FB IM), but in Ontario, a study of September cases revealed that unvax'd people are 6.6x more likely to catch COVID; 14x more likely to be hospitalized; and 24.5x more likely to end up in the ICU. 

[Stadler]

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.

So, and just so I'm clear, you never vocally question the mental acuity of shitty drivers that you get stuck behind?

 

Honest to god, no.   In that case, I'm far more likely to call them selfish or self-centered.  That to me is more a matter of courtesy.   If I'm going to resort to questioning someone's mental acuity, it's far more likely to be in the realm of economics (the people that think it makes sense to tax people at 100% of their income and that they will roll over and pay it make me question their ability to function).  But even then, I DO try to practice what I preach.  That I think it, doesn't make it right, and that I'm human doesn't mean that the overall argument is wrong.

[Harmony]

What do you all think about the restaurant owner in Texas kicking out patrons for wearing a mask (they have an immunocompromised child at home)?

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/09/18/rowlett-restaurant-owner-explains-no-mask-policy-after-asking-family-to-leave/


Personally, I'd never take my business there and while I feel bad for the customers, I also feel like if he is not violating local rules around masking, he should run his business how he sees fit.

And that also includes any consequences he has from making this policy.  And even though the local news affiliate only identified him as "Tom" he has been public about it on his social media pages. 

[El Barto]

What do you all think about the restaurant owner in Texas kicking out patrons for wearing a mask (they have an immunocompromised child at home)?

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/09/18/rowlett-restaurant-owner-explains-no-mask-policy-after-asking-family-to-leave/


Personally, I'd never take my business there and while I feel bad for the customers, I also feel like if he is not violating local rules around masking, he should run his business how he sees fit.

And that also includes any consequences he has from making this policy.  And even though the local news affiliate only identified him as "Tom" he has been public about it on his social media pages.

All I needed to see was Rowlett. 

I have no idea how it would relate to a third party, but he may run into some ADA trouble with that. In fact, that gives me an idea. . .

[Stadler]

It's really depressing to keep reading these posts that just ASSUME that these people have the same mindset, outlook and risk tolerance as you (collective).   I just don't assume that people that forego the vaccine that then get the virus are automatically "Wow, DTF was right; should have got the shot!"

Quite literally, I neither said or implied any of that.  I said that I cannot wrap my head around that mindset.  I know that people have that mindset, but I just don't get it.  And while they may not have said "DTF was right", I've read/watched more than a few articles/interviews where ER/ICU patients very much DO express regret and/or ask for the vaccine.  It seems (not for the first time), you are applying some of your own biases around what you think other people believe, to statements that literally don't say what you interpret them to be saying.

One, I never said YOU said it.  I said that many of the posts here clearly don't account for the fact that different people make different assumptions and have different risk profiles.  And they don't.

That the press is putting up articles where people express regret doesn't surprise me. I have a healthy distrust of the motivations of the mass media, as do many here (the difference being that I don't limit my criticism to Fox News).   

This is more stark globally.   230M cases, roughly, out of a population of 7.4B.   Your chances of getting this, vaccinated or not, is something like 3%. 

  C'mon man, you know this is a horseshit, poor man's way of calculating the "chance of getting it" metric.  You're smarter than this.  As you quite often point out on any given analysis, there are far more variables involved to come to this conclusion beyond global population, and global case count.  I can't link the image (as it was sent to me in a FB IM), but in Ontario, a study of September cases revealed that unvax'd people are 6.6x more likely to catch COVID; 14x more likely to be hospitalized; and 24.5x more likely to end up in the ICU.

You're right, as far as you go.  But that's just half the equation. That's the RELATIVE risk.  I accept that data (not the exact numbers, but the relationships) but I ALSO am considering the ABSOLUTE risk, and accept the data that says the odds for ALL of them are not that high.   You cannot ignore the data that doesn't match your conclusion.  Your conclusion HAS to incorporate ALL the data whether it is indicated or contraindicated.  Just read the title of this article (though I would go much further and read the article itself.  Else you'd miss this tidbit:  "Relative risks have the appealing feature of summarizing two numbers (the risk in one group and the risk in the other) into one. However, this feature also represents their major weakness, that the underlying absolute risks are concealed and readers tend to overestimate the effect when it is presented in relative terms. In many situations, the absolute risk gives a better representation of the actual situation and also from the patient’s point of view absolute risks often give more relevant information.")

For example:  you and I go to a bar.  We sit and have a drink. I go outside to make a phone call.  I am xx times more likely to be hit by a meteor that you, since I am outside and you are protected by a building.  It is still HIGHLY unlikely that EITHER of us is going to get hit by a meteor.  I should not be shamed into getting a vaccine against meteors.  Condoms versus the pill; RELATIVELY, the pill has a higher success rate of preventing pregnancy.  Yet both are acceptable forms of birth control.

[Chino]

Fun Fact: There is only 1 recorded case in the entirety the human history of a person being hit by a meteor! (and it wasn't even a direct hit)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/only-person-ever-hit-meteorite-real-trouble-began-later-180961238/

[jingle.boy]

One, I never said YOU said it.  I said that many of the posts here clearly don't account for the fact that different people make different assumptions and have different risk profiles.  And they don't.

Ok fair... but when referencing "these posts" while quoting mine, you can see how it's a direct inference.

That the press is putting up articles where people express regret doesn't surprise me. I have a healthy distrust of the motivations of the mass media, as do many here (the difference being that I don't limit my criticism to Fox News).

Mistrust is fine, but I had an old boss who used to say "once is an event; twice is a coincidence; three times is a trend".  I've heard/read the 'regret' more than enough times to simply dismiss it as an agenda of the media.

For example:  you and I go to a bar.

This is the most important thing to take away from your last segment.  I cannot wait for the day this happens.  Seriously.