Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a huge number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Well, we saw hospitals here and around the world run into problems from covid before there were any vaccines; then after the vaccines were rolled out it took months for this wave to hit, associated with the delta variant, which started in India, where few people were vaccinated; and the Minnesota study shows that vaccinated people are getting less illness, not more, with delta; and Idaho says most of their ICU cases are unvaccinated. Is the state of Idaho lying? (A Republican administration, I point out again.)

It may well be that we are going to hit a variant that is more deadly in vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. If everyone were vaccinated (which is far, far from being the case in Idaho) then it would be very difficult to distinguish the resulting deluge of severe illnesses from a variant that was simply more deadly all around. Delta, though, is not that variant.

Reasonable arguments should be about the application of different values to the same facts. You'd expect an argument against your anti-vax sentiment to say "The benefits outweigh the side effects." If someone said "There are no side effects," or worse, "There are no vaccines, or almost none, those videos of mass immunizations are all faked," you'd think this is a person who is impossible to talk to. If there is no consensus reality at all, there is no basis for discussion.

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Why do you feel the need to emphasize Republican so much?

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Because whenever a Democratic governor says there is a crisis in their state, a bunch of people claim that they are making it up because they want to impose a totalitarian regime to destroy their own states because they hate America and freedom. This is a Republican administration saying hey, we're hip deep in doo-doo here, folks. Can Idaho's Republican governor be believed when he says they're having problems?

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

This is even creepier than I had thought....

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

How so?

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Got a source for this claim Idaho's governor is claiming they have major issues?

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Here's Idaho's Dept. of Health and Welfare with a quotation from the governor:

https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/news/idaho-activates-crisis-standards-care-north-idaho-due-surge-covid-19-patients-requiring

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Keep in mind a lot of people reflexively distrust everyone regardless of party affiliation these days....

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, and speaking as an Idahoan, you want people to believe Governor Chicken Little? If he says the sun is shining, go outside and check!

The State House put themselves in recess instead of ending their session just so they have the legal ability to rein him in, if needed. He's that bad. He did his best to pretend Idaho is a dense blue state for the whole pandemic, which is blatantly absurd, and try to order policies accordingly. This generally gets him way out of what he can actually do and begging localities to comply with turning his wishes into ordinances.

The only people who like Gov. Chicken Little are his owners, I mean, doners. His only chance of winning his primary is if the field is overly split. Which it looks like they're going for . . . and he's causing the Republican party here to shed voters like crazy.

BoysMom

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Huh… You know I do seem to recall quite a bit of talk about how regarding Republicans “a bunch of people claim that they are making it up because they want to impose a totalitarian regime to destroy their own states because they hate America and freedom.”

Increasingly loud and shrill and especially common when Trump’s name came up. Hmmm…something about reaping what you sow?

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

"Reasonable arguments should be about the application of different values to the same facts. You'd expect an argument against your anti-vax sentiment to say "The benefits outweigh the side effects." If someone said "There are no side effects," or worse, "There are no vaccines, or almost none, those videos of mass immunizations are all faked," you'd think this is a person who is impossible to talk to. If there is no consensus reality at all, there is no basis for discussion."

Agreed. But notice I am presenting alternative arguments for the facts. You are dismissing them. I explained exactly why the statistics could be wrong. I explained why the "Covid deaths" cover a lot of what for anything else would be classed as non-Covid deaths, and so comparing these statistics to prior things doesn't work. So you're quite right that discussion between us seems impossible, and I won't bother with any further responses.

Re: Immune tolerance hypothesis

[(Anonymous)]

Suppose that a tire shop warned you that normally they get 6 to 10 flat tires a day, and now they're getting 100 and they're being run ragged, and most of the flats seem to have nails in them, and they think someone has spilled or thrown nails in the street. And suppose you said "There's no increase, this is just your normal business, and there aren't any nails, or if there are, you must have put them there." They would say, "If you're so fracking smart, then when your tires go flat you can change 'em yourself."

Doctors and nurses, for both ethical and legal reasons, are not permitted to do that. That doesn't mean that they are all stupid, or evilly faking a pandemic for no apparent reason. At least you and I do have one point of agreement: we agree that covid is not a bioweapon. Maybe that's a starting point?