COVID-19/corona virus mega thread/prepping thread

[Perd Hapley]

Or is this an example of additional research yielding additional information that was not apparent a few years back?

 

No.

[Ben]

Or is this an example of additional research yielding additional information that was not apparent a few years back?

How are we to know? Researchers were being banned left and right.

Also, not much research was needed regarding origin.

[MillCreek]

No.

I see Mr. Hapley expresses his cynicism of the scientific method while using the magic electric box to share his opinions with the world.

[RocketMan]

Or is this an example of additional research yielding additional information that was not apparent a few years back?

I read more than one article a few years back highlighting studies that indicated natural immunity existed and was effective against Covid.  These articles did not appear in the MSM because they did not toe the party line at the time.

[Perd Hapley]

I see Mr. Hapley expresses his cynicism of the scientific method while using the magic electric box to share his opinions with the world.

 Yeah, sure, that's what happened.

No, I'm just glad the scientific method is making a comeback.

[cordex]

Or is this an example of additional research yielding additional information that was not apparent a few years back?

What does that have to do with the religious fervor which fealty to The Science was enforced?

Government, public health bureaucracy, medical institutions, social media, regular media, entertainment outlets, and large corporations joined together to say: “This is Truth, backed by Science himself, and no one may question it!”  Nearly all the doctrine they proclaimed with that infinite confidence and certainty was later determined to be either outright wrong or massively overstated.

Adherents to the cult of PopScience pretend not to remember all the times they crucified people who were correct too soon, and also utterly lack the humility to admit their mistakes.

[MechAg94]

Or is this an example of additional research yielding additional information that was not apparent a few years back?

We already know the govt made claims that the vaccine would prevent the vaccinated from passing on COVID when they hadn't even begun research to show if that was true.  They claimed the vaccinated wouldn't even get the disease.  IMO, we also know that many of the treatments doctors were throwing at patients likely did more harm than good and likely contributed to the death rate.  It would be a change of pace if they would simple be up front about that.  I don't mind the govt simply saying "we don't know" or "the vaccine is new and we are still testing it".  I expect that.  I don't want to be lied to. 

[cordex]

I see Mr. Hapley expresses his cynicism of the scientific method while using the magic electric box to share his opinions with the world.

This is a pretty smarmy and unaware canned response.

Millcreek, you're a smart, capable, aware guy, and I'm pretty sure you're old enough to remember the last three years.  It would shock me if you have lived those years without having even an inkling of the failures of people professing to be on the side of The Science (some - but not all - of them actual scientists) to even allow people to question their untested proclamations, much less apply the scientific method.

The policies which failed (over and over) were not presented with any humility, nor were people allowed to question them - after all, Science!  If the mobilized public health apparatus and their various enforcement arms had been honest about what their policies and prescriptions were based on, what confidence they had for success, and so forth they likely would not have gotten the compliance they wanted ... and they knew that.  So instead of humbly saying "this is the best we know now", they made a big show of "The Science Says!" as though everything had been studied, figured out, and determined.  Like you did in the above post, they intentionally conflated established, tested, and successfully implemented scientific theories with SWAGs and made questioning the latter out to be questioning the former.  That is dishonest.

[MillCreek]

These discussions remind me of one of my favorite jury instructions.  If you do malpractice in Washington state, especially defense, you are familiar with WPI 105.08 (https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2c8ccb6ee10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default).  We like to call it the 20/20 hindsight instruction.  You cannot apply the 20/20 retrospectroscope to argue that a physician erred. You are judged by your actions at the time based on the information available to you at the time, and if you pick one treatment over another, even if it turns out to be wrong, you are not liable, as long as your decision to pick the one treatment is reasonable, which is defined as a consensus opinion based upon experts and the literature.

I think part of the issue here is conflating the political interpretation and action upon scientific findings. Have public health recommendations changed over time? Absolutely. Was politics a major component of Covid actions? Absolutely.  When you look at the actual scientific literature on the topic, consensus findings take a while to be agreed upon, if ever, and findings and recommendations thereto have clearly changed with additional research and you still have disagreement in the medical and scientific community.  It is easy to look back now and/or cherry pick your studies to say they should have known all along that A, B, or C doesn't work and they were clearly idiots or malign to do those things.  The power of 20/20 hindsight.  Do I think that 'Science' was a monolithic entity that was acting in a malign manner?  I am going to need to see some better evidence on that.

The left/center/right media and the Government do an excellent job of conflating the politics and the science and that is going to have some impacts down the line.  There are already some good studies showing that childhood immunization rates are dropping, and at least part of that is parental distrust of the scientific/medical/political industrial complex.  I have been saying for a while now that perhaps the only good thing to come from Covid is learning things for the next public health crisis.  I wonder what those learnings will be.

[RoadKingLarry]

Except we're not talking about hindsight. They were slinging bullshit and anyone who tried to call them out for it was pilloried.

[MillCreek]

Except we're not talking about hindsight. They were slinging bullshit and anyone who tried to call them out for it was pilloried.

And how exactly do you know it was bullshit at the time?  Based on the science, the media you consume, or your personal opinion?

[zxcvbob]

And how exactly do you know it was bullshit at the time?  Based on the science, the media you consume, or your personal opinion?

Sometimes you can tell just by the smell  https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839

[MechAg94]

And how exactly do you know it was bullshit at the time?  Based on the science, the media you consume, or your personal opinion?

How exactly did they know the facts they were throwing around at the time? That is the question that needs to be answered.  I can deal with doctors at the time saying they screwed up as long as they had a reason to do what they did.  I don't think that is the case here. 

So far, what we are finding out (as zxcvbob's post points out) is they had no basis for what they were saying.  Not only did they make claims for which they had no research to back up, but Pfizer and others fought in court to avoid making public the research and testing for the vaccine even though Congress already gave them liability protection.  And then the Govt worked with social media companies to shut down anyone questioning the official narrative. 

[Nick1911]

I think that we on this board, and probably conservatives in general, treat government with extreme distrust.  A long history of government lies and retcons from our perspective have generally taught us to start from a position of skepticism.  Like everyone, we apply various biases and filters that confirm our positions to ourselves.

I agree with Millcreeks position that ongoing research has and will continue to enlighten us to the nature of the covid virus and the epidemiological controls should be implemented for such viruses.  I agree that there was much not known at the onset, which is known now.

I also agree with Cordex in that we got hammered with propaganda from almost every angle projecting consensus and quashing skepticism with regards to government policy around the virus.  This was done under the banner of capitol-S-Science.  It was a hamfisted attempt to drive compliance with unpopular public health measures.  Ultimately politicians justified their public health policies behind the smoke screen of Science.  Doing so has undermined the credibility of the medical and scientific sector for a fair few folks.

[cordex]

I think part of the issue here is conflating the political interpretation and action upon scientific findings.

Yes, which is the precise problem I took Mech (and others) to be pointing to.

Do I think that 'Science' was a monolithic entity that was acting in a malign manner?  I am going to need to see some better evidence on that.

I agree completely.  In fact, I don't see anyone here arguing against you on this.  The people claiming that The Science is a monolithic entity were the ones who subverted science to achieve their political goals, or to force acceptance for their unsupported hypotheses.

The part of Mech's post you responded to was:

Another example of the news saying something that would get you banned off social media not too long ago.  How many studies showed the opposite?

Your response seemed to ignore that this clearly makes a distinction between the self-styled defenders of Scientism in social media and the scientists who were interpreting results in varied ways.

The left/center/right media and the Government do an excellent job of conflating the politics and the science and that is going to have some impacts down the line.

Agreed.

I have been saying for a while now that perhaps the only good thing to come from Covid is learning things for the next public health crisis.  I wonder what those learnings will be.

I worry that what was actually learned is that a public health crisis is extremely valuable both monetarily and politically.

How exactly did they know the facts they were throwing around at the time? That is the question that needs to be answered.  I can deal with doctors at the time saying they screwed up as long as they had a reason to do what they did.  I don't think that is the case here. 

So far, what we are finding out (as zxcvbob's post points out) is they had no basis for what they were saying.  Not only did they make claims for which they had no research to back up, but Pfizer and others fought in court to avoid making public the research and testing for the vaccine even though Congress already gave them liability protection.  And then the Govt worked with social media companies to shut down anyone questioning the official narrative. 

This exactly.

[RoadKingLarry]

And how exactly do you know it was bullshit at the time?  Based on the science, the media you consume, or your personal opinion?

So, just because we were right at the time doesn't mean we were right? Got it.

Where to begin...

Let's address the ad hominem attack first shall we... Try re-reading my comment. Here, I'll make it simple for you "Except we're not talking about hindsight. They were slinging bullshit and anyone who tried to call them out for it was pilloried."  The operative point is underlined. Why do you find it necessary to question my education and intelligence? I was simply reiterating that anyone who dared question  "THE SCIENCE" was attacked.  Do you refute the notion that anyone that questioned "THE SCIENCE" was ridiculed, attacked and silenced for daring to question "THE SCIENCE"? 
Arrogant much?

I will briefly explain why I was extremely skeptical of "THE SCIENCE" and adamantly refused to take their experimental "vaccine".
After the initial deployment of the virus we saw the powers that be telling us how to stay safe by social distancing and wearing a face diaper.  OK fair enough, some basic hygiene stuff, no big deal.
 
Then we started seeing things like the Governor of NY refusing to use the hospital ship Trump sent and instead placed active Covid cases into nursing homes. Man, that sure worked out well didn't it.

Here are a few of the red flags I saw.
The part where you can't question the science.
Any "science" that can't be questioned because the "authorities" say so is automatically suspect. Anyone that claims to be a scientist and goes along with not questioning the science doesn't deserve the title.
Any suggestion of a treatment outside of the "THE SCIENCE" approved treatments or any questioning of "THE SCIENCE" was met with ridicule, derision, personal attacks (deja vu), firings and even threats of imprisonment. 
We also saw the statistics being manipulated. Suddenly nearly all deaths were Covid deaths, people stopped dyeing from flu, heart disease, car accidents gunshots... everything was "Covid related". I have personal, 1st hand information of two people that died and their cause of death was listed as Covid related one was a car crash in which the driver (a friend of mine) was ejected from the vehicle (dipshit neer wore his seatbelt) and was crushed when the car landed on top of him. The other was an elderly relative with a long, long history of heart disease and emphysema. The shotgun in the mouth would have been my diagnosis but it was actually Covid that killed him. Just ask "THE SCIENCE".

So maybe we all don't have your lofty degrees and years of experience and indoctrination in the medical field but that doesn't mean we can't identify bullshit when it's getting rubbed in our faces.


 

[MillCreek]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/102965

It will be interesting to see this case make it through the court system.  No state other than California has gone the 'medical misinformation' route in terms of unprofessional conduct.

[MechAg94]

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/102965

It will be interesting to see this case make it through the court system.  No state other than California has gone the 'medical misinformation' route in terms of unprofessional conduct.

That will be interesting to watch since it is in the 9th Circuit. 

[MechAg94]

Any suggestion of a treatment outside of the "THE SCIENCE" approved treatments or any questioning of "THE SCIENCE" was met with ridicule, derision, personal attacks (deja vu), firings and even threats of imprisonment. 

This is the other part that concerned me.  I heard plenty of anecdotal stories of doctors prescribing ivermectin among other things, but I didn't like seeing the FedGov using their funding authority to bully doctors and hospitals into towing the line.  It is almost as if we have a govt run health care system or something.


Of course, it doesn't look like there is any will in D.C. to fix any of this.  I figure Pfizer and others spread the campaign contributions around pretty liberally. 

[dogmush]

In related news of new studies, Ivermectin still doesn't do anything for COVID:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

[Ben]

In related news of new studies, Ivermectin still doesn't do anything for COVID:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827

And herein lies one of the biggest unintended consequences of covid manipulation. Pre-covid, I would have read something in JAMA and likely taken it as a study that followed the scientific method, and not spent time looking for contrary studies. I'm pretty sure that even early in this thread, there are some links to JAMA covid articles that at the time, people said, "That's bullshit" (and others said, IT'S SCIENCE!) and have now been proven to be bullshit.

The linked article here may have followed proper protocols, and used valid inputs, or it may not have. I currently hold JAMA articles on covid to the same level I hold Washington Post articles. I will always hold them suspect and look for independent replication of the study and for contrary studies.

Analogous to this, I still try to keep up on scientific journals in my area of expertise, and everytime I read a study in them that concludes with "due to climate change", I hold the study suspect, due to the potential for agendas and "funding" souring the integrity of the study.

[MechAg94]

And they are still testing whether ivermectin "cures" COVID rather than being a preventative.  That has been commented on as well.  I believe that other drug that Trump was taking in 2020 was believed to be a preventative also. 

Most of the people I heard about who took ivermectin for COVID were prescribed a number of things just included ivermectin.  Makes me curious if there is anything to that.

[MillCreek]

And they are still testing whether ivermectin "cures" COVID rather than being a preventative.  That has been commented on as well.  I believe that other drug that Trump was taking in 2020 was believed to be a preventative also. 

That was HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) and the majority of the clinical trials testing it as Covid prophylaxis had disappointing results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=hcq+prophylaxis+covid&oq=hcq+prophy 

[dogmush]

To Ben's point: prior to the pandemic I am not sure I was even aware of JAMA, but I've been reading a lot more medical studies the last 3 years for some reason    I agree that one of the big side effects is that in general the words "Study shows" in a MSM article or Social Media tweet are much less likely to be taken as evidence that that one thing is in fact true. 

On the bright side, I have discovered that most scientific studies have a pretty solid EXSUM that will tell you what you need to know and give you a good look at the scientific method and how it was applied.  The Ivermectin study I linked is 4100 words, and I ran through it in about 10 minutes.  (I skimmed some sections)  If you don't want to deep dive the data there's no reason to take a journalist or tweeters word for the veracity of any study.  More folks reading primary sources may be a good thing over all.

To MechAg94's point:
The study mentions the time from symptom onset to first dose (3-7 days, median 5 days) which seems pretty quick to me for what it is.  Most people with mild to moderate COVID aren't running to a Dr. at the first symptom, so a little time to get sick, get tested, get results, go to doc, get recruited into the study, and get drugs seems like it's going to have to happen.

What would you want a preventative dose to look like?  Just take Ivermectin every day like a vitamin in case you are exposed to COVID?  Genuine question.  What do you see as the dosing schedule for preventative vs. for symptoms?

[MillCreek]

On the bright side, I have discovered that most scientific studies have a pretty solid EXSUM that will tell you what you need to know and give you a good look at the scientific method and how it was applied.  The Ivermectin study I linked is 4100 words, and I ran through it in about 10 minutes.  (I skimmed some sections)  If you don't want to deep dive the data there's no reason to take a journalist or tweeters word for the veracity of any study.  More folks reading primary sources may be a good thing over all.

I have been reading the scientific and medical literature since age 16, and the legal literature/statutes/regulations/appellate opinions since my early 20's.  If I have learned one thing, when the left/right/center media or social media talk about scientific, medical or legal matters, reading the actual primary source material informs you as to what the media leaves out, gets wrong, or puts their own bias on.