Live data from Hacker News

An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

thelancet.com

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin is safe in humans, and it isn't difficult to find that out. I'm ignoring your speculation about me and plan to continue to do so, so let's not bore each other.

Ivermectin is not safe in humans at the quantities required for it's observed antiviral effect against COVID.

At least one small clinical study found that ivermectin was clinically effective at a safe dosage of 150 μg/kg. More research is needed to determine if this is a real effect or just random chance.

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#312
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin is not safe in humans at the quantities required for it's observed antiviral effect against COVID.

At least one small clinical study found that ivermectin was clinically effective at a safe dosage of 150 μg/kg. More research is needed to determine if this is a real effect or just random chance. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989

150ug/kg is the typical dose for deworming effect.

The antiviral effects were found in vitro at, if I remember correctly, around 8x the concentration that would be found in typical treatment.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#313
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a choice. They choose their actions, they choose who to listen to, they choose what to believe. They choose to be open or closed minded. They choose to listen to new ideas or not. A lot of people are choosing wrong and suffering for it. They had a choice. No one can take that away from them, they always had a choice. Propaganda only works if you choose to believe it.

It's not always a free choice. For you and me it might be, because we may have the acquired skills to research sources, spot bullshit, etc. We still miss stuff. But for a lot of people "choosing wrong", it might just be the sum of their environment. A media diet too heavily reliant on Facebook for example. Ah but they're choosing to stay on Facebook you say... Well, yes, but if they can't directly make the link betwe…

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with you entirely. However I don't think it's as simple as being helpless victims of propaganda or other deceitful information.

Everyone has the choice to ask, "but what if they're wrong?" That simple question alone illuminates the incremental path to greater understanding (however long the journey may be). Many of these people who have been enthralled by the narrative that vaccines are dangerous and unnecessary are otherwise normal people. They're able to function in their jobs and day to day life. If they believed everything anyone told them they'd never be able to function in society, and yet they do function. Precisely because they are able to choose who and what to believe; we all do it every day! They choose to never question certain sources or authorities. It's a willful choice.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly say democracy is the most successful government system in history? There is little reason to believe that. These sorts of kitschy phrases being substituted for real discourse is why were here. Democracy is nice, but historically it leads to very bad outcomes in a few hundred years. What remains to be seen is whether or not this democracy will sustain itself.

It is the most stable form of governance that doesn't require subjugation of citizens and has the ability to self-correct because election disallow personal Democacies are indeed young so I don't get your point that it will lead to something "very bad".

Democracies are not 'young'. Rome was a democracy for four hundred years before falling into autocracy and empire. As was Athens and some other Greek cities. Many 'barbarian' tribes were democracies as well. Democracy is not something invented in 1776. All experiments in democracy have so far failed. Most fail spectacularly and devolve into authoritarianism (see the 1st French Republic). There has never been a long-sustained democratic government. The most stable forms of government is a representative monarchy or an empire. In 2066, the monarchy of England will celebrate 1000 pretty-much contiguous years. There are actually monarchies that have lasted longer (like the Eastern half of the roman empire which lasted more than 1500 years, as well as the pharaohs of Egypt or the empires of China). There is no democracy that has lasted that long. And to say that the English monarchy requires 'subjugation of its citizens' is quite silly, or even that the Roman empire under Caesar required constant human rights abuses of its citizens (it didn't... roman citizens had lots of rights we enjoy today).

Look.... I believe in democracy, but I don't have a religious fervor over it. I am shocked when my fellow Americans seem so unschooled in basic history. Indeed, many of the undemocratic things put into our constitution (like the much maligned electoral college) were put there by our founders hoping to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. They were very aware that democracy typically fails spectacularly, and put in many anti-democratic things into the constitution to avoid it.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Trump got on TV and started sounding like Mitt Romney, they'd toss him aside in two seconds. That's right. Trump was booed the moment he suggested that his supporters get vaccinated against Covid-19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Z4J9nY0v4

It doesn't matter. He's still revered by many, even if he now supports vaccination. It is 100% a cult of personality.

This is straight up flame bait that adds nothing to an otherwise reasonable discussion.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself to be on the right. We use Ivermectin. We have stocked it for years. It's a very handy de-wormer. It has served our livestock very well. If you have never used it, and have never treated animals for worms, maybe you should listen more and talk less. Most experienced people I know on the left are fine with Ivermectin. Oh, you mean for Covid? We use BioNTech and Moderna for that. Please stop confusing…

If you are some separate "right" that has no affiliation to these "Trumpers" then stop donating to/voting for the party that is supporting candidates that clearly align with or benefit from this type of thinking. I didn't confuse anything because that's the rhetoric coming from the right. Even if all of you from the right don't agree with it, you certainly don't do much to fight it. Very few people agree with their p…

No post body was provided.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#317
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin is safe. It's an anti-parasitic, not an anti-viral. Is it effective against covid? There are very smart people out there who have serious concerns with the primary study Ivermectin proponents point to showing effectiveness against this virus. In all fairness, my entire qualm with you is the way you've needlessly personalized this discussion. We could have discussed the issues at hand directly. Alas.

What I have never understood is if you don't want the vaccine because the long term studies are due in 2023 what subset of this group is pro Ivermectin? Ivermectin used on humans is a new area with fewer studies.

Billions of doses of Ivermectin have been taken by humans.

https://www.merck.com/stories/mectizan/

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the conspiracy aspect of that? It was widely understood early on that if anything would be a long-term solution, it's vaccines. And vaccine mandates have been around for many decades, so why was it surprising that they also showed up?

First it was a time were no vaccine was remotely on the radar so media weren't promoting a non-existing solution. It's only months laters that some get approved for experimentation on humans. Secondly linking participation to social life and freedoms such as moving inside the country (or heck even buying food!) to the vaccination status of an individual is totally unheard of. The last time remotely similar measures w…

The vaccine was "on the radar" from the get go - they didn't have one yet, but there was broad awareness that one would have to be made to solve the problem. The initial lockdowns and the (belated) masking mandates were explicitly described as stopgap measures to hold the line.

"Linking participation to social life and freedoms" has been around for decades in form of school vaccine mandates. Mandatory masking had a clear precedent in 1918. If you're surprised by any of this, I don't even know what to say.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#319
post #298
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American who has lived abroad for a significant number of years and returned recently, it becomes abundantly clear, that if we only measure by the amount of time spent bitching, moaning, and fighting, Americans hate each other more than anything else on this planet. Disease, war, famine, injustice, genocide, plague? None will garner as much sincere unflagging burning rage as what those other fuckers did or said…

In my opinion this is a sign of America becoming a utopia. Most people have so little to worry about we start fighting on stuff that literally doesn't matter.

Utopia for the ruling class who have been successful in keeping the population distracted from material issues and social issues such as poverty, lack of access to health-care, education and decent, secure jobs.

Instead of bread, it’s shiny disposable gadgets; instead of circuses, it’s the culture wars.

Re: An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people want to live in their own version of reality I don’t care. But when their version of reality is ruining it for the rest of us, it is a problem Are you sure that is a true statement? What exact ruination are you referring to? Are you saying that we would not have had a delta wave in the U.S. if more people had vaccinated? Or that lockdowns would have gone differently? Or schools? Australia still has a covi…

I’m not pretending or saying that if everyone was vaccinated or wore masks when they should, it would all be over. That said, a lot less people would be dead and we can clearly see in the data as it exists now that areas with lower vaccination rates are doing worse. And of course, the overwhelming majority of deaths are among the unvaccinated. It isn’t rocket science. And we still have a non-trivial segment of the po…

You brought up a log of topics, some more fringe than others. I think there's been a lot of changes in the world the past few decades that have left a lot of people feeling culturally adrift. Lack of trust in various institutions. Perhaps it is a loss of personal identity, replaced by mass media tribalism? Perhaps the internet is a big part of that - a printing press in everyone's pocket? Finance and globilzation doesn't help. Politicians are not helping.

On the topic of covid specifically, I think that people have vastly different outlooks on the personal and/or societal risks of dying versus the impact of extended lockdowns. I don't think it is an unreasonable position. It's hard to point at definitive data proving that anything works for certain, there's a lot of confounding factors and surprises in the numbers. Some people can't get past the individual tragedies. Some people only look at the population scale numbers. Some people are more educated than other. Lots of people make up their minds on a hunch, as you said, and look for sources that confirm their biases.

A fascinating book I read called "The Republican Brain" talked about this stuff, theorizing that some of the partisan divide is due to personality differences, that people are born with different feelings about authority, hierarchies, individualism, communitarianism, etc. I was left with the impression that this was an evolutionary advantage as a species, that the variety of ways of thinking makes us better as a group.

I don't think that it's the end of the world that we as a group don't agree on everything. We could celebrate that and support each other in our differences, or at least respect each other. But so many do not, both on the left and on the right. They'd rather win 51% of the vote, and impose their point of view on the losers, winner take all. Mass media and further removing isolating people make the problems worse.

> And we still have a non-trivial segment of the population who can’t get vaccinated (under 12) who are quite literally the victims of people who are largely unvaccinated

You called out some things the other side say that are unreasonable. I think the language you used above is a bit strong, and I'm not sure how much fact vs feeling it is. Not a lot of kids die of covid. It's similar for them to the risk from the flu in other years. And RSV. And the vaccine is not 100% effective, lots of people will still die, just like people die of the common cold every year. It seems unreasonable to draw a "quite literally" connection between the vaccinated and the small amount of kids who die, some every year, from respiratory ailments.

Also there is no country in the world who has a 100% vaccination rate, so maybe it is outside the bounds of human nature to expect that amount of compliance on such a short notice controversial issue? Perhaps it would be better for politics to account for the strong beliefs that large segments of their populations hold? For instance, why haven't we build more hospitals in the last 18 months? Are there better ways to support the vulnerable? What are the numbers used to justify various decisions? Can we admit what we don't know? etc

Post reply on HN