|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
So does anyone know if under-5 in the richer classes are getting off-label Pfizer? I've heard rumors of that, rumors of them getting prophylactic mabs routinely, and pretty much confirmed rumors of pediatric vaxx tourism in Cuba.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:The science is that this variant is more infectious but less severe, so people taking ten days off work because they’re virtually asymptomatic but have a positive COVID test doesn’t make sense at all. Vermont handed out thousands of free at-home testing kits and then their hospitals were overwhelmed by people with positive results and no other need to be at the hospital. "mild' means not hospitalized, and frankly, with the rate of propagation it doesn't need to have a high rate of serious illness to capsize the medical system. And this is merely the start of possible evasive variants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:So does anyone know if under-5 in the richer classes are getting off-label Pfizer? I've heard rumors of that, rumors of them getting prophylactic mabs routinely, and pretty much confirmed rumors of pediatric vaxx tourism in Cuba. Yeah but they make you wait a month after the 30th shot to let the kid's arm heal
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I've seen this narrative popping up a lot lately, to imply that all "mild" cases will still make you dangerously unwell, which is obviously not true. One in three cases were asymptomatic and only a small minority of cases needed hospitalisation even before we had vaccines, let alone now. I think we need a word for symptomatic infections that don't send you to the hospital and have symptoms of a low enough severity and duration as to not have a significant impact on your life. It's a shame mild is taken. Extra mild?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:So does anyone know if under-5 in the richer classes are getting off-label Pfizer? I've heard rumors of that, rumors of them getting prophylactic mabs routinely, and pretty much confirmed rumors of pediatric vaxx tourism in Cuba. You aren't "hearing rumors" you are just reading the other thread, as are like 20 other people, then dropping other thread stuff in this thread with the twitter source deleted like you randomly heard it on the street. Just post the twitter post directly if you wanna talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:Also even if omicron is milder, it doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Encouraging everyone in the country to just catch the disease seems like a great way to get a dozen new variants, some of which could be much worse or even just a little worse. I don't think it's worth even thinking like this on a national scale...like, the US could do a complete reversal and suddenly achieve covid zero and we are still going to get a "dozen new variants" unless every place on earth also achieves covid zero which is an unrealistic ask in the end (I mean, poo poo, it's an unrealistic ask for the US to achieve covid zero). I don't say that to dispute the idea that we should be trying to avoid as many infections as possible, just that I think maybe we/people think too small on this stuff rather than globally as is necessary if there was any hope to avoid variants etc Speaking of feigl-ding I found it amusing in my twitter feed to see someone retweet him loudly proclaiming "BAD NEWS: OMICRON DOESNT' SHOW UP IN RAPID COVID TESTS!" immediately followed by another tweet from a different person pointing out that the FDA press release didn't say what feigl-ding said and that the headline for it was misleading
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Where are people getting the idea that omicron is mild, other than some countries having lower hospitalization and death numbers? This seems premature, like the belief early on that children were unaffected or at zero risk of serious illness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:The science is that this variant is more infectious but less severe, so people taking ten days off work because they’re virtually asymptomatic but have a positive COVID test doesn’t make sense at all. Vermont handed out thousands of free at-home testing kits and then their hospitals were overwhelmed by people with positive results and no other need to be at the hospital. Yes there is nothing to worry about with Omicron: https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1476031303984234502?s=20 Maybe it’s just all Delta? Then the CDC change makes even less sense. https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1475848395768086529?s=20 One can’t say “Omicron is mild” with hospitalizations jumping at their highest since 2020. Does Omicron and Delta suddenly not infect people? Source please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:The science is that this variant is more infectious but less severe, so people taking ten days off work because they’re virtually asymptomatic but have a positive COVID test doesn’t make sense at all. Vermont handed out thousands of free at-home testing kits and then their hospitals were overwhelmed by people with positive results and no other need to be at the hospital. I don't think "the science" is at all conclusive that "this is just a nasty cold" now. Can you point to anything indicating that? How about those low- or asymptomatic people five days out? Are they still contagious? Where is "the science" the CDC relied on to make that change without even requiring testing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
There is no way for us, or most authorities, to know whether doctors are offlabeling something. A set of court cases from the Washington Legal Foundation ruined FDA's ability to limit prescribing practices under most circumstances. I am not knowledgeable about any exceptions that might apply to the vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You aren't "hearing rumors" you are just reading the other thread, as are like 20 other people, then dropping other thread stuff in this thread with the twitter source deleted like you randomly heard it on the street. Ps. the "rumor" was just a news story that cuba is vaccinating children and a thread poster saying "I should take a vacation to cuba" then people talking about how it's actually not hard to take vacations to cuba. Like the "pretty much confirmed" is literally just thread posters saying they would do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Where are people getting the idea that omicron is mild, other than some countries having lower hospitalization and death numbers? This seems premature, like the belief early on that children were unaffected or at zero risk of serious illness. how else do you determine the severity of something? looking at hospitalizations and deaths compared to cases is a decent way, but most people are still hedging their bets with "it looks like, so far" etc could be that things play out differently in the US or other places. Also I think it's worth saying that "omicron is milder" means on an individual level someone may be less likely to end up in the hospital etc, not that we will see fewer hospitalizations overall (since omicron is far more infectious, even fewer hospitalizations per case could mean more hospitalizations overall) I feel like I've seen people arguing past each other over that distinction in this thread which isn't surprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:One can’t say “Omicron is mild” with hospitalizations jumping at their highest since 2020. I mean, no, that's not how it works, you need to define how you're evaluating it. If you're talking about overall impact? Sure, huge number of cases means huge number of hospitalizations even if the percentage of hospitalizations is lower than delta. but when people say it's "milder" almost all the time they're talking about on the individual infection level, not the overall impact. So this arguing over the term "mild" is getting pretty dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Bad news, it's also a factual misrepresentation; Walensky's response is entirely about improving compliance rates; it turns out "people" means "people", not "business" or "capitalism". Compliance rates mean nothing if the guidance is inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Levitate posted:how else do you determine the severity of something? looking at hospitalizations and deaths compared to cases is a decent way, but most people are still hedging their bets with "it looks like, so far" etc My question is specifically for people posting that first proposition as if it were true beyond reasonable doubt. As you suggest, I don’t think hospitalization rates can tell you with any certainty what’s going to happen to you if you get sick. I mean, I want it to be true, but “omicron signals the end of danger and covid has now mutated into its safer final form” seems like a big, big claim that needs a lot more investigation than “South Africa didn’t have that many people in hospital compared to test numbers.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
You'll need to quote the person you're talking about, I guess. I don't recognize the statement you put in quotes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:You'll need to quote the person you're talking about, I guess. I don't recognize the statement you put in quotes. I’m asking how we can investigate the claim that covid is now a mild experience at the level of the individual, and therefore nothing to be seriously concerned about in day-to-day life, or what we would need to do in order to investigate that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
So, herd mentality is the new plan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I mean, no, that's not how it works, you need to define how you're evaluating it. If you're talking about overall impact? Sure, huge number of cases means huge number of hospitalizations even if the percentage of hospitalizations is lower than delta. Sorry, I’m not really arguing over the term “mild” as much as the CDC, and posters that defend the CDC’s decision, have yet to provide any scientific evidence for the updated isolation guidance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Compliance rates mean nothing if the guidance is inadequate. It's easy to make up perfect public health plans. If everyone stopped having sex and doing drugs HIV rates would drop down to near zero. The actual part of a public health campaign that matters is finding the sweet spot of being able to say "heh, I'm so right, this plan is perfect if everyone follows it perfectly" and people actually following the plan. Making a needle exchange will save more people from needle borne illness than just saying "umm, just don't do drugs sweety" and then thinking you have solved everything forever. Public health measures have to actually be able to engage with the public. An imperfect thing people follow is better than a perfect plan that people don't do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's easy to make up perfect public health plans. This is a gross statement that borders on the line of gas lighting. It sure isn’t easy to make perfect public health plans given CDC’s track record. Early on the CDC said for folks not to wear and N95 mask even though SARS was already proven to be airborne. The CDC STILL doesn’t recommend an N95 mask to this day. Expecting the CDC to even make the most basic form of guidance for an airborne virus isn’t even close to demanding they be being perfect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Reading this thread is absurdly depressing sometimes, its like some of you are actively rooting for the virus to kill lots of people just so you can say 'I told you so'. When did listening to experts become unfashionable again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
If people aren't following CDC guidance, shouldn't the CDC suggest ways to improve compliance rather than lowering the standards? If hardly anybody bothers to quarantine for 5 days with the new guidance, should they drop it to 3? Not to mention that most of the evidence they cited on infectiousness and transmission is for studies based on 2020 data which isn't as relevant for delta, let alone omicron. And give that, why didn't they make these changes back in the summer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I’m asking how we can investigate the claim that covid is now a mild experience at the level of the individual, and therefore nothing to be seriously concerned about in day-to-day life, or what we would need to do in order to investigate that. who's making that claim? I think every health professional etc that I see talking about omicron being more "mild" than delta is not using that to claim that things are OK now and we're in the clear. I think the overall picture I have gotten is people just putting that out there as data and less about making claims that it is not something to be concerned about. Though I think the media and twitter have always had issues with their messaging over this kind of thing...you put out info saying "fully vaccinated and boosted people have a very low chance of severe infection" which is good info to have and then suddenly people think "well I can do whatever I want and I"ll be fine, they said I won't get a severe infection!" Also, just saw this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/28/cdc-isolation-guidelines-rationale/ quote:They worried the sheer volume of infections could mean that tens of thousands of police, firefighters, grocery workers and other essential employees would be out of work, making it challenging to keep society functioning, even though many of the infections would be mild or produce no symptoms, the officials said. So there's seemingly the main justification of shortening the quarantine period.Seems a lovely decision forced by a lovely situation. e: I've definitely also seen concerns that there won't be enough healthcare workers in hospitals to handle the surges in hospital cases without this change. I'm not advocating for it at this point Levitate fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Carrier posted:Reading this thread is absurdly depressing sometimes, its like some of you are actively rooting for the virus to kill lots of people just so you can say 'I told you so'. When did listening to experts become unfashionable again? Who are you referring to? Please quote examples if you have them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Carrier posted:Reading this thread is absurdly depressing sometimes, its like some of you are actively rooting for the virus to kill lots of people just so you can say 'I told you so'. When did listening to experts become unfashionable again? People are listening to the experts. We listened when the experts explained that the decision to cut the quarantine time from ten days to five days was because not enough people were doing a ten day quarantine. Which does not instill a great deal of hope and confidence. Especially since the idea that if they cut it to five days more people will follow it doesn't seem like a very safe bet. It seems a lot more likely that people doing the ten days will drop to five days, and people who were already doing less than the CD recommended will see that that the CDC has reduced their recommendations and then reduce their own actions to match. Somebody who say that the CDC said ten days but figured six is good enough will see that the CDC now says five days and figure that that means three days must be enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Carrier posted:Reading this thread is absurdly depressing sometimes, its like some of you are actively rooting for the virus to kill lots of people just so you can say 'I told you so'. When did listening to experts become unfashionable again? Earlier this year those experts said that there was no need for masks anymore so it's uh good to have some healthy skepticism considering how many terrible choices have been made
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Lots of experts are saying the CDC's guidance change is indefensible
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
The change is defensible from the perspective of my IRA.Gripweed posted:People are listening to the experts. We listened when the experts explained that the decision to cut the quarantine time from ten days to five days was because not enough people were doing a ten day quarantine. Which does not instill a great deal of hope and confidence. The quarantine time was literally lowered because too many people are taking time off to care for themselves and we're at risk of hospitals and fire stations shutting down. My source is Tony "the Science" Fauci in an interview. They're willing to admit it, why can't you guys? Retcon it how you like, but poo poo's bleak by any real measurement. nomad2020 fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is a gross statement that borders on the line of gas lighting. I don't think you know what gaslighting is On another note, how do you even achieve covid zero when a good 1/3 of your population thinks it's a chinese hoax and some states have outlawed stuff like 'quarantine'
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
eXXon posted:If people aren't following CDC guidance, shouldn't the CDC suggest ways to improve compliance rather than lowering the standards? If hardly anybody bothers to quarantine for 5 days with the new guidance, should they drop it to 3? The CDC doesn't have ways to improve compliance in this context other than by communicating guidelines and changing the content of those guidelines. The drop to 5 days was based on relative periods of infection- there's no indication that a further reduction would be supported in the same calculus. eXXon posted:Not to mention that most of the evidence they cited on infectiousness and transmission is for studies based on 2020 data which isn't as relevant for delta, let alone omicron. And give that, why didn't they make these changes back in the summer? It's a guidance page that's been in continuous updating for several years, not all of the data is new. What's changed with omicron is that it appears to spread more and cause less severe disease, which changes the calculus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Alctel posted:I don't think you know what gaslighting is Thank you for posting a good example of it  Discendo Vox posted:The CDC doesn't have ways to improve compliance in this context other than by communicating guidelines and changing the content of those guidelines. The drop to 5 days was based on relative periods of infection- there's no indication that a further reduction would be supported in the same calculus. Where Is The Science
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
I literally posted a link to a guidance page with a reference section.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I literally posted a link to a guidance page with a reference section. can you post it in the form of a tweet though
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I literally posted a link to a guidance page with a reference section. That isn’t the science. That is a text of bullshit that even the CDC’s own page says their guidance is wrong: “Available data suggest that patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 remain infectious no longer than 10 days after symptom onset” So is it 5 or 10 days? Why is there no need to test negative?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Quote / edit
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
nomad2020 posted:The quarantine time was literally lowered because too many people are taking time off to care for themselves and we're at risk of hospitals and fire stations shutting down. My source is Tony "the Science" Fauci in an interview. They're willing to admit it, why can't you guys? It's not a retcon, what are you talking about? The director of the CDC literally says that people weren't following the recommendation so they changed it to a recommendation that people could or would be willing to follow. My source is this video the director of the CDC on the news saying it herself https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1476183132844003337?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:It's not a retcon, what are you talking about? The director of the CDC literally says that people weren't following the recommendation so they changed it to a recommendation that people could or would be willing to follow. My source is this video the director of the CDC on the news saying it herself Exactly. This sounds exactly like the whole “that isnt what Trump meant! He really means…” But with Biden and the CDC. Same garbage happened when Biden said there isn’t a federal solution to covid. The quote is there, in video form. Stop with the gas lighting. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
If the argument is that the epidemic is now so bad that if people quarantine for more than five days the system will collapse, why aren't we closing non-essential businesses? Or going with mandatory indoor masking? The five day thing means people will be going back to work while they're still contagious, and possibly still sick. So the CDC guidance now has people spreading the disease everywhere, and possibly collapsing at work because they're trying to work while they're sick. Once you acknowledge that the reduction was not based on "the science" then you need to face the multiple ways that it's really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Gripweed posted:It's not a retcon, what are you talking about? The director of the CDC literally says that people weren't following the recommendation so they changed it to a recommendation that people could or would be willing to follow. My source is this video the director of the CDC on the news saying it herself https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/dr-fauci-explains-new-cdc-isolation-guidelines-129732165818 At least Fauci's answer makes sense from a disease control standpoint. Walensky just admits most of America doesn't listen to her recommendations as is. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Exactly. This sounds exactly like the whole “that isnt what Trump meant! He really means…” I'm not the one who brought back herd mentality as policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:37
|
|