641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jesus people they said they hope it stays: aka socially it becomes normalized. No one is advocating forcing people to wear masks forever.
I very strongly hope that it doesn't become socially normalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they are both protease inhibitors. It is quite plausible that if this drug works that ivermectin also does indeed work. But this isn't new information and every time I post it I get downvoted for spreading "misinformation". But big pharma would never skip an existing, cheap, off patent treatment in lieu of guaranteed multi-billion dollar, liability free vaccine contracts, right? We can totally trust these guys,…
Yeah the big pharma were so moral they allowed any other company to copy their complex vaccines that needs special cold storage with significant investment they got free from the government also for specialized manufacturing, all this is offered patent free out of the goodness of their hearts! I wonder why smaller companies didn’t take them up on their generous offer?
99.97% of people will develop antibodies naturally.
And there is early treatment like ivermectin, hydrochloroquine, monoclonal antibodies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your children do not need it - perhaps you should evaluate whether they are in an 'at risk' category like the Nordics https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w In the US, 340 children under 17 have died from Covid. Total. During the same period, 187 have died from the flu, and over 51,000 children have died from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... Sweden halts Moderna:…
From the nature.com link that you posted: “The low rate of severe acute disease is important news, but this does not have to mean that COVID does not matter to children,” says paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome. “Please, let’s keep attention — as much as is feasible — on immunization.”
(Time to check my pfizer stock...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could see things starting to really ease up once all children have had a chance to be vaccinated and everyone else has had a chance to get their 6 month booster shot.
Children aren't at risk from Covid at all. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w In the US, 340 children under 17 have died from Covid. Total. During the same period, 187 have died from the flu, and over 51,000 children have died from all causes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... They are more likely to be injured by these vaccines and neurotic parents stuffing them into mas…
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-...
Does anyone have a sense as to when US society will completely eliminate COVID measures? Is it just me or is there no clear exit criteria anymore? This will go on forever without exit criteria.
When hospitalization and community transmission is "low" based on the CDC definition of low, and when 80% of the total population is vaccinated or eight weeks from yesterday, whichever comes first. They also publish a dashboard with the information so anyone can see how we are progressing: https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboards
We were at almost 80% vax rate for 12+ already and hospitalizations are currently low and have been for a while, however community transmission remains high.
So at least in our county they have specific standards as to when the restrictions leave. Other than a mask mandate, there are no other restrictions anymore, except for school kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California, except for wearing masks in retail establishments, everything has been back to normal for months. School has been full time in person, and traffic sucks once again.
I wouldn't call it "back to normal". In addition to the mask mandates, which are more bothersome than you make out (e.g. it's pretty tiring to do cardio at the gym with a mask), there are other restrictions. Parents aren't allowed on our school campus, we don't have any in-person school events, kids get tested once a week, kids have to stay at 3 feet from each other at school, no wind instrument classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's fair to say that it's just money. There's also a global crisis and a huge need for such a drug.
Well hopefully money serves as a tool for prioritizing resources for important problems. Seems to be working well in this case.
> There were six hospitalizations and no deaths among the 607 patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, compared to 41 hospitalizations and 10 deaths in the placebo cohort. I know it shouldn't be shocking but it just hit me that being in the control group here is very close to getting a death sentence. I couldn't find it in the article OP shared or the press release, but did the control group…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I am talking about ‘scientists’ telling others that Covid-19 is magically limited to a 1.5m or 6 feet circle (depending in which country you live). Or that they have to be really careful outside, and that it’s more safe to not go for a walk and fatten up in front of the TV. Or that ‘covid 0’ is a valid policy and that if it doesn’t work it is the fault of this week’s scapegoat. And then censoring anyone who would…
Nobody, and I mean nobody , genuinely believes that COVID-19 can't be spread when social distancing measures are perfectly observed. The 1.5m/6ft distance was chosen based on both epidemiological models that show statistical decreases in contagion and the political reality that people (understandably) get very upset the more you ask them to stay away from other people. The rest of your post doesn't reflect any govern…
Those models were based on a very old mistake and had no basis in reality: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
It's a very long read, but worth it. Basically, the social distancing measures were based on two things: That the primary spread vector was "droplets", and that they fell to the ground pretty quickly (before they could spread beyond ~6 feet).
The mistake the title refers to is that the medical definition that distinguishes "droplet" vs "aerosol" isn't the same as any other context, such as when used when determining how far the particles can travel. The cutoff between "droplet" and "aerosol" in the medical context came from a Tuberculosis study about how far different particle sizes could penetrate into the lungs. Only later were those numbers mistakenly used as the cutoff for "droplets" vs "aerosols" in general, leading to a lot of confusion over 2020: SARS-CoV-2 really does spread primarily through aerosols, not droplets, as defined in any context other than that medical mistake.