COVID-19/corona virus mega thread/prepping thread

[Nick1911]

These two statements  are demonstrably,  provably false.  And have been so proven, several times on this site alone. 

Just because a control measure isn't 100% effective,  or even 50% effective,  doesn't  mean it does nothing.  Several people on this site have brought legitimate questions about whether or not the usefulness of masks are worth the costs, which is a conversation I wish the country had actually had.

But to say they and vaccines "don't do anything" is just idiotic. It shows cult like belief in untruths.

^^This.

IMO, Bogie seems to have some kind of emotionally driven obsession about this topic.  It's unlikely that further discussion with him will be productive in advancing understanding for either side.

[Bogie]

I hate being lied to. I hate the presentation of biased statistics as somehow being factual. I hate having to suspend my brain to watch the evening news.

I hate having someone snidely inform me that I have to wear a symbolic scrap of t-shirt or that I am a bad person.
 
Let's not even get into the folks who are wearing masks so that they won't show up on video.
 
Or maybe I AM a bad person? I used to be the kind of guy who would stay home if he had the flu, so that I didn't give it to my cow orkers... maybe now I'll just put on a magical scrap of face diaper, and go permeate the workplace... Yeah, that'll be okay...

[zxcvbob]

I hate being lied to. I hate the presentation of biased statistics as somehow being factual. I hate having to suspend my brain to watch the evening news.

I hate having someone snidely inform me that I have to wear a symbolic scrap of t-shirt or that I am a bad person.
 
Let's not even get into the folks who are wearing masks so that they won't show up on video.
 
Or maybe I AM a bad person? I used to be the kind of guy who would stay home if he had the flu, so that I didn't give it to my cow orkers... maybe now I'll just put on a magical scrap of face diaper, and go permeate the workplace... Yeah, that'll be okay...

I don't disagree with really any of that.  (I wish Americans would wear masks when they are sick if they have to go out, like Asians do)  I disagree with the previous statements about masks and vaccines not doing anything.

[Bogie]

99+% of the masks that I've seen don't filter the bug... You're on a bus with a couple of dozen people wearing the same things, and... you're all sharing it.
 
And the buses here NEVER stopped running during the "quarantine." And were picking up and dropping off workers at care facilities.

When you can smell the weed on the wake'n'bake who just walked into the store, and didn't get any closer to you than 10', do you really think that it is doing much?

The vaccines? They appear to be deeply flawed. If it wasn't for the hysteria, they probably would have been abandoned while still in the labs.

But you can't say that they're flawed, because that is denying science, and you MUST care, because you have to show that you care, because if you don't care,  you're a bad person, and maybe even a science denier. And the "science" is no longer about data and repeatability, but about anecdotes which support your position.

And... All the while, the books are being cooked to "prove" things. At this point, I trust the Chicago Board of Elections more than I trust most of the 'Rona stats that I've seen presented.

So, why aren't all the essential workers dead?

[MechAg94]

I don't disagree with really any of that.  (I wish Americans would wear masks when they are sick if they have to go out, like Asians do)  I disagree with the previous statements about masks and vaccines not doing anything.

What kind of masks?  In reality, N95 masks aren't required anywhere in public that I am aware.  The thin bandana's do very little but catch the largest droplets.  The paper masks are usually poorly fitted and little of the air goes through them.  I have a set of cotton masks my Mother made for me.  No elastic and they actually fit decently.  They are probably more effective than most masks I see.  Saying they do "nothing" may be inaccurate, but saying they are effective is a stretch in many cases. 

Are the vaccines effective?  Yes, but I think the powers that be have been over claiming the effectiveness from the start which undermines my trust in what they say.  IMO, they really should be treated like the flu vaccine in the past.  Take it if you want or if you are in a vulnerable condition (older or with comorbidity or both).  I don't think it should be forced on anyone (by govt or company) especially since you can still carry it and spread it after having the vaccine. 

[cordex]

Are the vaccines effective?  Yes, but I think the powers that be have been over claiming the effectiveness from the start which undermines my trust in what they say.  IMO, they really should be treated like the flu vaccine in the past.  Take it if you want or if you are in a vulnerable condition (older or with comorbidity or both).  I don't think it should be forced on anyone (by govt or company) especially since you can still carry it and spread it after having the vaccine.

Agreed.

“Efficaciousness” in early studies and general effectiveness are not the same thing.

I was particularly amused when De Selby was trumpeting the trials showing 100% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids without realizing that the same study showed that a placebo showed 98% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids in the same trial.

I’ve also seen concerns that releasing a mostly effective vaccine generally in the middle of the pandemic is effectively the same technique you would use to intentionally breed resistance into any dangerous virus or bacteria. Giving it to at-risk people makes sense, but by giving it to everyone is like giving everyone a low-dose antibiotic and then being shocked at a rise in antibiotic-resistant infections.

[dogmush]

I don't think it should be forced on anyone (by govt or company) especially since you can still carry it and spread it after having the vaccine.

Wait, you think the .Gov and companies don't force the flu vaccine on people?

[Bogie]

I was particularly amused when De Selby was trumpeting the trials showing 100% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids without realizing that the same study showed that a placebo showed 98% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids in the same trial.

 
And... What you get from most of the covid dancers from that is...
 
"YOU WANT 2% of the children to die? You're a MONSTER!"

I prefer the Ronco approach for most of the non-terminally ill folks - catch it, beat it, and forget it. Like our species has done for millenia...
 
But that no longer counts.

[Bogie]

Opinion makers discovered that the bulk of the population wanted safety. PERFECT safety... And striving for that is one helluva way to work a population.

[Perd Hapley]

Opinion makers discovered that the bulk of the population wanted safety. PERFECT safety... And striving for that is one helluva way to work a population.

Very true, and much more dangerous than Chinavirus.

[De Selby]

Agreed.

“Efficaciousness” in early studies and general effectiveness are not the same thing.

I was particularly amused when De Selby was trumpeting the trials showing 100% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids without realizing that the same study showed that a placebo showed 98% effectiveness in preventing COVID in kids in the same trial.

I’ve also seen concerns that releasing a mostly effective vaccine generally in the middle of the pandemic is effectively the same technique you would use to intentionally breed resistance into any dangerous virus or bacteria. Giving it to at-risk people makes sense, but by giving it to everyone is like giving everyone a low-dose antibiotic and then being shocked at a rise in antibiotic-resistant infections.

Your interpretation of placebo “effectiveness” is way off - a normal ratio of kids in that age group got covid when they had the placebo. No kids in that age group got covid. That does not mean the vaccine is comparable to placebo.

Here’s the issue with the rest of your post: rather than amateur reasoning about the behaviour of coronaviruses, the question about how the vaccine will affect the virus should be settled by intensive scientific research. It’s cool that we all have theories about how this will play out - scientific testing of those theories is what we should be using to make decisions. It’s simply not the sort of discipline where drawing what you think are reasoned conclusions makes for sensible policy - coronaviruses aren’t biologically related to bacteria at all, and the same rules about resistance do not by necessity apply. Scientific sources should be the basis of our risk assessment and discussion.

Simply throwing your hands in the air and vaguely referring to “the powers that be” as a cause of making actual data fake is a recipe for garbage decision making.

[De Selby]

Very true, and much more dangerous than Chinavirus.

I’ll settle for responsible control measures that, if I abide by them, mean it is unlikely I will start a chain of transmission that kills people. And I think it’s fair that we should frown on people who won’t take basic measures to avoid becoming a spreader of a disease that will kill people.

[cordex]

Your interpretation of placebo “effectiveness” is way off - a normal ratio of kids in that age group got covid when they had the placebo. No kids in that age group got covid. That does not mean the vaccine is comparable to placebo.

I do not think the vaccine is comparable to placebo in effectiveness.

As far as ratios go ... yes, but no.  The trial included 2260 children.  1129 were in the placebo group of whom 18 got COVID. 

So what would the trial have shown if instead of 0 vaccinated kids getting COVID in the brief time period of the study there had been 5?  Would the vaccine have been touted as 72% effective (the reduction in comparison to the placebo group - 13/18) or 99.5% effective (the reduction in infections compared to the overall group size 1126/1131)?

If the former, it would be the first study I've seen that uses that strategy.
If the latter, then the ratio compared to normal doesn't figure in to how they are calculating effectiveness, does it?

Here’s the issue with the rest of your post: rather than amateur reasoning about the behaviour of coronaviruses, the question about how the vaccine will affect the virus should be settled by intensive scientific research. It’s cool that we all have theories about how this will play out - scientific testing of those theories is what we should be using to make decisions. It’s simply not the sort of discipline where drawing what you think are reasoned conclusions makes for sensible policy - coronaviruses aren’t biologically related to bacteria at all, and the same rules about resistance do not by necessity apply. Scientific sources should be the basis of our risk assessment and discussion.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that intensive scientific research had shown that coronaviruses mutate very slowly, or that they are an exception to the rule when it comes to selection pressure.  Very interesting.
Are you working under the assumption that public health policy has been based on intensive scientific research?

[De Selby]

So you acknowledge the study demonstrated zero covid cases where the placebo group got covid, but now youre questioning the study parameters and doing your own math analysis on how those placebo numbers stack up? Again, seems like a recipe for bad decision making.

Also - you gave a rhetorical reply to the point that decisions about the impact of vaccination should be based on research. If you have studies suggesting that vaccination should be halted or limited because of the viral properties of COVID 19, please post them. If you don’t, well then all you’ve got is rhetoric based on assumptions about the virology of the disease - again, a recipe for disastrously bad decision making.

[cordex]

So you acknowledge the study demonstrated zero covid cases where the placebo group got covid

No, there were 18 cases where the placebo group got COVID.

but now youre questioning the study parameters and doing your own math analysis on how those placebo numbers stack up? Again, seems like a recipe for bad decision making.

If you believe that the efficaciousness rate of a vaccine should be determined by comparison to the placebo rate then you need to take that up with all the COVID 19 vaccination trials to date because that is not how it is done - likely to oversell the capabilities of the vaccine. 
On the other hand, if you accept the efficaciousness rating of all the COVID vaccines then proclaiming the placebo to being 98% effective at preventing COVID (in kids) is entirely in keeping with established scientific reporting.

[Bogie]

Old science: Look at all the data.

New science: Pick only the data that supports your position.

Got it.

Remember that the covids is FATAL!!!! So all those kids with it are going to DIE!!!! Why do  you HATE CHILDREN?

It's a cold bug. One of many. It's gonna be here. It is ALWAYS gonna kill geezers, just like the flu...

But if you make other people wear virtuous masks, you are gonna live FOREVER!

I wonder how many of the nursing homes have shared HVAC systems with little, if any, filtration for small particles?

But hey... Get your kids those shots... If one dies for it, that's so that some guy who is 89, and terminally ill with lung cancer, can live another two weeks...

[Bogie]

Oh, and make sure you put those filthy gloves back on - that'll protect you from the bug boring through your fingerskins... And keep that six foot distance, even if you occasionally have to pull your mask away because all the exertion is fogging up your safety glasses that you got at the drug store...

Remember - it's for the children.

[MechAg94]

I was curious about that study also.  How many of the kids who contracted it had severe symptoms? 

[zahc]

None of the trials for the major vaccines tested effectiveness against death. Yet we are told the vaccines are the best way to save lives. None of the trials tested against severe disease or hospitalization either, yet we are told the vaccines are the best way to reduce hospitalizations.

They may or may not be effective against death or hospitalization but the fact is there have been no controlled trials to prove it, and it's obvious most people think there is and that public health officials let them believe it.

[WLJ]

Noticed a pattern in many arguments in this thread.
It's either 0% or 100% with no in between.
If it's not 100% effective it's 0% effective.
If it's not 0% effective it's 100% effective.

I know people that take similar stances on seat belts. Know a guy who refuses to wear a seat belt because he knows someone who was wearing a seat belt and died and people who weren't wearing a seat belt and lived thus in his mind seat belts will get you killed and you're insane for wearing one and you can't argue with him. Not comparing masks and vaccines to seat belts just the 0-100 mindset. I've learn that it is usually pointless to argue with them.

[zxcvbob]

What kind of masks?  In reality, N95 masks aren't required anywhere in public that I am aware.  The thin bandana's do very little but catch the largest droplets.  The paper masks are usually poorly fitted and little of the air goes through them.  I have a set of cotton masks my Mother made for me.  No elastic and they actually fit decently.  They are probably more effective than most masks I see.  Saying they do "nothing" may be inaccurate, but saying they are effective is a stretch in many cases. 

Are the vaccines effective?  Yes, but I think the powers that be have been over claiming the effectiveness from the start which undermines my trust in what they say.  IMO, they really should be treated like the flu vaccine in the past.  Take it if you want or if you are in a vulnerable condition (older or with comorbidity or both).  I don't think it should be forced on anyone (by govt or company) especially since you can still carry it and spread it after having the vaccine.

Non-vented respirator-style masks.  N95, KN95, PPF2, etc.  Even nuisance dust masks that look like N95s but just have one elastic band instead of 2.  They were hard to find for a while, but now you can get them at the hardware stores again; some are even NIOSH approved.  Yes, they leak a little around the nose bridge (especially when you exhale) if they are not fitted perfectly but they don't leak much.

Next step down, (a big step down IMHO) are 3-layer paper surgical masks.  Those have good filtration but they leak a lot around all the edges.

[Ron]

Official numbers have been demonstrated to be inaccurate all over the planet. Official forecasts have been terrible time and time again. These are DeSelby's hard numbers. Probabilities are a tool not reality. The assumptions and data used to determine the probabilities dictate the outcomes. I used to assume the statisticians were trying to determine the potential truth. These last couple years have rattled my trust in the official sources so I'm less inclined to be like DeSelby. Early on I was down with the program, the incoherencies now have moved me into a more skeptical position.

What signal I can discern through all the noise is that in the short term at least, getting the jab(s) protects the elderly and those with comorbidities from worse outcomes.

We have no observed knowledge of long term effects of getting the jab(s).

We have no observed knowledge of long term effects of the infection after recovering from a covid infection.

I'm not seeing any good or safe choices.

Injecting a large portion of humanity with an experimental drug always seemed crazy to me.

My assumption is they've possibly been experimenting with these drugs behind the scenes unofficially, maybe having more knowledge than they can admit. Even if that is true it's a deception that would give me pause for concern. There has never been a vaccine pushed on the public so strongly by governments across the world that is so dangerous in of itself. A potentially dangerous treatment with no long term studies.

Getting infected with Covid can lead to some pretty bad outcomes other than death. While for many it is like a bad flu there are also many that get very sick and have long term complications.

Governments going all jackboot and telling lies add a bizarro world twist to the whole thing.

[MechAg94]

Noticed a pattern in many arguments in this thread.
It's either 0% or 100% with no in between.
If it's not 100% effective it's 0% effective.
If it's not 0% effective it's 100% effective.

I know people that take similar stances on seat belts. Know a guy who refuses to wear a seat belt because he knows someone who was wearing a seat belt and died and people who weren't wearing a seat belt and lived thus in his mind seat belts will get you killed and you're insane for wearing one and you can't argue with him. Not comparing masks and vaccines to seat belts just the 0-100 mindset. I've learn that it is usually pointless to argue with them.

I have heard people say similar things about seatbelts.  Usually it was only justifying why they didn't want to wear it and it was usually some hearsay story that probably wasn't correct anyway.  I still don't think people should be required by law to wear them.

[MillCreek]

^^^Add motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets and gun locks to this list.

[De Selby]

No, there were 18 cases where the placebo group got COVID.
If you believe that the efficaciousness rate of a vaccine should be determined by comparison to the placebo rate then you need to take that up with all the COVID 19 vaccination trials to date because that is not how it is done - likely to oversell the capabilities of the vaccine. 
On the other hand, if you accept the efficaciousness rating of all the COVID vaccines then proclaiming the placebo to being 98% effective at preventing COVID (in kids) is entirely in keeping with established scientific reporting.

So that would be no, no published study on the virology of covid suggesting we should not vaccinate large groups?