691–700 of 925 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :)
> For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :) More for my understanding than anything else, and with every guarantee that I won't present any follow-up questions or statements, but why was this the tipping point and not the actual disease risk mitigation resulting from the vaccine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I guess my hesitation is, if my body has already been keyed by the original virus, had a terrible viral load (was positive for longer than I ever imagined), but very few symptoms... I’m fairly proud of my immune response and personally am wondering why I should take aim with a direct mRNA shot, feels unnecessary.
Here’s a discussion with how it all works and relevant links (edit: though I wish there were more sources there. Reader will have to do some work themselves): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27125871 There’s some positing that the vaccine could help or totally stop so-called long covid symptoms. My mom had some long covid symptoms and hasn’t since she got the vaccine. Also from the link, second exposures to infe…
I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance, and law enforcement. Yet simultaneously there is ostensibly a high degree of trust in the motives and competency of the American government when it comes to COVID. There's been multiple threads lately, including one that is on the front…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zeynep Tufekci published an excellent article about this. Her thesis is that medical dogma insisted COVID (and other infections) spread through droplets and not aerosols. Social distancing is enough to prevent infection from droplets because they don't travel far. That, it turns out, is wrong, and COVID can spread through smaller respiratory particles that can float, making social distancing alone ineffective. https:…
There was information that it was aerosolized from the early days (March) We were lied to because america did not stockpile enough masks for first responders
If the Wired article, which was downvoted to oblivion, is accurate then the WHO and the CDC (who parroted the WHO) bear a great deal of responsibility.
They shutdown scientists who were telling them that Covid was spreading as an aerosol, way back in early 2020.
The WHO now want MORE power, yet they’re not accepting accountability nor cleaning house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this gets repeated a lot, but that doesn't make it more true. Show me the quote where he said "we lied about masks", and "we changed our message about masks" doesn't count. The reality is that the knowledge about Covid changed significantly in march/April last year. In particular the understanding about unsymptomatic spread lead to a significant change of thinking. That makes sense, if the virus only spreads f…
2 weeks of asymptomatic spread has been known about since late January (edit: in 2020). [0] And Fauci said at one point (2/14/2020): “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” [1] And at another point (6/15/2020): "[...] we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The director of the CDC during most of the pandemic was Robert Redfield. Dr. Fauci is director of the NIH, so his statements are not relevant to the credibility of the CDC. In defense of Dr. Fauci's statement, saying "there is no reason right now to wear a mask" is quite different from "masks are ineffective", as it keeps getting paraphrased. The latter is obviously absurd, as there were numerous studies on the effec…
Fauci had said the reason they made a misspeak about masks is because they were afraid there would not be enough for first responders
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 weeks of asymptomatic spread has been known about since late January (edit: in 2020). [0] And Fauci said at one point (2/14/2020): “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” [1] And at another point (6/15/2020): "[...] we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal pro…
> “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” Isn’t this defensible if it was indeed true that there was a temporary shortage of masks for health care workers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and make it past child mortality That's the hard part in less developed countries. In 1960 Bangladesh had a child mortality rate of almost 30%. At that time the US was under 3%. Even today with antibiotics etc., Bangladesh is about 5x higher than the US. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by America's fascination with health: I'm an American, so it of course would seem normal to me. But whatever we're doing, Banglad…
I mean all the exercising and fretting about “clean food” versus “processed food,” pollution, etc. We don’t do all that. The difference in child mortality obviously isn’t about “healthy living”—its access to clean water, basic prenatal care and post-delivery care, etc. The difference in life expectancy between Bangladesh and the US at age 60 is just 4 years.
Which just means the deaths are front-loaded even more towards younger people. It doesn't matter how likely you are to live to X age once you're Y age when there are significant hurdles just to get to Y age. In 1850 in the US, the life expectancy of someone who made it to age 70 was to live another 10 years ~80 or so. Which sounds positive but this sort of thing is a completely useless statistic for evaluating the overall health challenges faced by any population. You can't just choose a later starting point in life, it only tells you one small part of the picture.
A big part of this is the differences in socioeconomic status: Poorer people, especially in less developed societies, can't reach those hurdles: It was pretty hard in those times to live past 50 when you spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week underground in a coal mine, especially compared to someone from an affluent family with better access to healthcare and a job that isn't manual labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” Isn’t this defensible if it was indeed true that there was a temporary shortage of masks for health care workers?
No, because ultimately the lie will be exposed and then your credibility is (rightly!) done for.
The wording here is good because we _should_ be skeptical towards any organization that is supposed to protect our citizenry, but unflinchingly lied to the entire population/world. Government has powers so that that it can control society. Why did the CDC need to lie and mislead people instead of finding a way to restrict the flow and supply of masks? The sad thing is that it would even be more forgivable if they were just completely incompetent and made a wildly incorrect guess. But they knowingly and deliberately lied in possibly the worst scenario to lie during.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Overwhelmingly we follow laws against public drinking, noise ordinances, littering, etc. How is following a mask mandate adopting a mindset of conformity that is different than following laws on littering? Consider the possibility that you have been manipulated to find outrage/concern/defiance over wearing a mask.
Those laws are fixed norms against doing concrete bad things. A norm of listening to any bullshit some authority figure spouses is not a fixed norm, but a meta-norm to respect any new norms created by that authority. My media consumption is also extremely limited, and comes almost exclusively from left-centrist (HN top posts, Techmeme) sources.