111–120 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.
We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't advocate for "do nothing". Not at all. I live in the UK and we have the NHS so their job is to look after people when they get sick (and, to a certain extent, use preventative measure like education where appropriate). But the UK governments largest spend is the NHS. We pay a fortune every year for it. So if they can't do their job then heads should roll among politicians and NHS brass. My argument is that t…
It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that. Here in New Zealand we isolate new arrivals in hotels and they are strictly monitored. There are only a few thousand people there at any given time, and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every so often.
Then why do the numbers keep going up despite locking down everyone? Why didn't governments institute a policy that keeps people away from those in vulnerable groups with a £1000 fine for breaches? Mandated masks etc. That would have been just as manageable. Lockdowns do not work, the figures clearly show that yet people still mandate for more lockdowns? I don't get it.
> and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every so often.
yes, but who is dying from it? It's the old and vulnerable, not the young and non-vulnerable: the vast majority of people will not die from this!
The cure is worse than the disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.
Elsewhere in this thread you argue that because only 400 people without underlying conditions have died, restrictions should be removed. The other 100k don’t seem to be of concern. I don’t think ‘balanced reporting’ is the full extent of what you are after.
But if you are really sick, you'd be at home, in your bed taking it easy anyway especially if your symptoms are as severe as some of the COVID reports suggest.
And it's not balanced reporting I want either, it's accurate reporting with facts that can be challenged or verified: most articles are incredibly vague when it comes to COVID and some have incredibly low numbers that, at first glance, look damning but are still tiny numbers.
Edit: deleted the 100,000 sentece - In response to that number, yes it may be a large number but there is no breakdown of the cases. For all you know, they were all 90+ years old with previous underlying conditions. All the figures we see have very little behind them that can substantiate the measures taken, while at the same time trigger responses in all of us that make them hard to argue against without coming across as callous but the numbers are not there to justify the lockdowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that. Here in New Zealand we isolate new arrivals in hotels and they are strictly monitored. There are only a few thousand people there at any given time, and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every so often.
> It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that. Then why do the numbers keep going up despite locking down everyone? Why didn't governments institute a policy that keeps people away from those in vulnerable groups with a £1000 fine for breaches? Mandated masks etc. That would have been just as manageable. Lockdowns do not work, the fig…
What figures show that lockdown doesn’t work? I’m in New Zealand. We had community covid multiple times and have eradicated it (with lockdowns initially).
Keep in mind that our initial lockdown was very strict, particularly compared to UK style lockdowns.
In the UK the cases are falling fast, why do you say otherwise? There are less new cases each day.
No one is dying from covid here and hasn’t for a long time, touch wood, hopefully that continues.
66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.
Why do you believe that the FDA is holding them back? So far the process appears to be approval after the minimum of safety and effectiveness testing. This means that people won’t waste time or be harmed by a failed vaccine candidate. I don’t work in medicine and am just a bystander like most. Is there something I am missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular opinion: the FDA has to justify their existence. If vaccines can be developed safely and deployed quickly, inexpensively, and in large quantities all without FDA then people would realize how bloated our government really is.
The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe, harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them. The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we rigorously…
If we had started releasing the vaccine in August of last year we probably could have saved 100,000 lives.
Also the FDA doesn't regulate medicine. Only drugs. All the rest of medicine doesn't fall under FDA regulation (like surgeries).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular opinion: the FDA has to justify their existence. If vaccines can be developed safely and deployed quickly, inexpensively, and in large quantities all without FDA then people would realize how bloated our government really is.
The FDA more than justified its existence when it prevented the entry of thalidomide into the US market without more evidence of its safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
Or from drugs not being researched or approved because it's too expensive to do an fda trial?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.
Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a partial or half immunized population not end up culturing a more resistant strain?
This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible population ; it doesn't directly cause issues for the virus the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it. It i…
From your response: "It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe, harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them. The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we rigorously…
The problem is deaths caused by a lack of regulation are highly visible. But all of the deaths caused by burdensome regulation are harder to point to. If we had started releasing the vaccine in August of last year we probably could have saved 100,000 lives. Also the FDA doesn't regulate medicine. Only drugs. All the rest of medicine doesn't fall under FDA regulation (like surgeries).