What does “ the science” say about Coronavirus 19 at the moment?

[iris lilies]

For those of you who remind us often that you follow “the science “I would like to know your opinions on some things. I mean your opinion and interpretation of it, not the whole science because I don’t expect a dissertation. I want to know what you — a poster here on this forum—think.

dado potatoe posted on another thread the breakdown of political affiliation of governors in states with the 10 top death rates. Half rePublican, half Democrat. I find this to be not a significant factor in looking at death rates to the point of being absurd, so you know my bias here. But how about you scientists?

What does “the science” Currently say about those who are not getting a vaccination?

What does “the science” currently say about Long Covid?

what does “the science” currently say about transmission (how,when who)?

Anyone can chime in but I’m looking at bae, jp, and Gardnr especially. I asked this question in the politics section because it will devolve into political spin from all three of you. Might as well start out right.

[Teacher Terry]

This is a health issue and shouldn’t have ever become political. I believe that if anyone else regardless of party had been president this never would have happened. Ugh! Plus as we progress and learn the science is changing.

[iris lilies]

This is a health issue and shouldn’t have ever become political. I believe that if anyone else regardless of party had been president this never would have happened. Ugh! Plus as we progress and learn the science is changing.

Everything is about politics. Just like in my city everything is about race. You can say it “shouldn’t” be but that denies some legitimate points of view. Some. Any broad generalization is not very useful, in my opinion.


Other than the broad generalization that yes the science is changing. That’s why I use the word “currently “ often in this post.

[Yppej]

My mother has had chronic Lyme disease. Everything that goes wrong with her - including things that I think are pretty clearly related to old age - she attributes to Lyme disease.

I am very interested in what double blind peer reviewed scientific studies published in reputable medical journals say about long covid. It seems a lot of vague symptoms are being attributed to it and I have not heard of any proof that this is fact from covid.

[iris lilies]

There’s no question in my mind that long Covid exists,But that doesn’t mean Everyone who attributes their symptoms to long Covid actually have it.

[frugal-one]

What does it matter what others "opinions" are? The science says it all.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Those who aren't vaccinated have a much higher risk of getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying from covid, really no comparison, this is extremely rare for the vaccinated. Why people aren't getting vaccinated? I don't know, sure some for political reasons, but probably a lot of other reasons too, not good.

Long covid is probably a rare side effect of covid and always was. BUT ... if you have a large enough denominator, and a TON of people had covid, rare effects show up. I don't know if anyone knows why it happens to some people. Sucks for those who are affected.

[iris lilies]

What does it matter what others "opinions" are? The science says it all.

Great then since it’s so straightforward and clear-cut for you, please tell me what “the Science “says about any one of the questions above. Or all of them.

[iris lilies]

Those who aren't vaccinated have a much higher risk of getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying from covid, really no comparison, this is extremely rare for the vaccinated. Why people aren't getting vaccinated? I don't know, sure some for political reasons, but probably a lot of other reasons too, not good.

Long covid is probably a rare side effect of covid and always was. BUT ... if you have a large enough denominator, and a TON of people had covid, rare effects show up. I don't know if anyone knows why it happens to some people. Sucks for those who are affected.

I’m not sure that long Covid is rare. I know two people who have it, Tammy from this forum being one of them.That’s why I wonder if there any studies out there yet. It may be too soon but I would like to know what people are finding as they do research.

[catherine]

I’m not sure that long Covid is Extremely rare. I know two people who have it, Tammy from this forum being one of them.That’s why I wonder if there any studies out there yet. It may be too soon but I would like to know what people are finding as they do research.

I have been googling and looking to see if I can find the answer to your questions. The topic is SO broad, and the studies out there are, let me say, pretty dense. I'll see what I can find and report back. Can you provide me with the 3 key questions you would like to have the answers to?

[iris lilies]

I have been googling and looking to see if I can find the answer to your questions. The topic is SO broad, and the studies out there are, let me say, pretty dense. I'll see what I can find and report back. Can you provide me with the 3 key questions you would like to have the answers to?

i would LOVE to know what % of Covid sufferers experience Long Covid to a debilitating degree. I suppose we could assume “Long Covid” IS debilitating or else we wouldnt be studying it tho.

Then…how long does Long Covid last? Someone in my condo has it and she says she’s on a discussion forum for Long Covid. She said people report waking up one morning and poof it is gone. I do think it’s possible that we don’t know how long it lasts because we haven’t been in the disease bubble long enough to have good data and of,course “Long “ is longer for some than for others.

Finally, what are the top symptons of Long Covid?

[Jane v2.0]

I'm not going to wade through the voluminous knowledge base developing around COVID-19, but here's a study showing brain damage in a large percentage of people hospitalized with it:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/study-80-hospital-covid-19-patients-have-neurologic-complications

"Eight of 10 hospitalized COVID-19 patients developed neurologic complications and were six times more likely than their peers to die, according to early results from a global study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779759) published yesterday in JAMA Network Open.
Many of the conditions were mild to moderate, but half of the patients had altered brain function or structure, and almost one in five were in a coma."

[Jane v2.0]

...
Then…how long does Long Covid last? Someone in my condo has it and she says she’s on a discussion forum for Long Covid. She said people report waking up one morning and poof it is gone. I do think it’s possible that we don’t know how long it lasts because we haven’t been in the disease bubble long enough to have good data and of,course “Long “ is longer for some than for others.

Finally, what are the top symptons of Long Covid?

A friend of a friend has it, and started a FB support group. She's gone from being a healthy, active middle-aged woman to an exhausted, depressed person who can barely get out of bed. I've heard of people getting some relief from the vaccine, but don't know about her case. It kind of sounds like ME/CFS, which ties in with the idea of brain damage.

https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/index.html

[Alan]

Anyone can chime in but I’m looking at bae, jp, and Gardnr especially. I asked this question in the politics section because it will devolve into political spin from all three of you. Might as well start out right.
Earlier today, before reading this thread, my wife and I visited a small historic church in Keystone Nebraska, it was built in 1908 with money raised by 10 local girls. It has a Catholic altar on one end and a Protestant altar on the other and has reversible pews. I remember thinking as we toured it that some of our posters might report with full solemnity that those damned Republican Protestants wouldn't let the poor Catholics have their own church, or vice versa. >8)

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/217612126_10220080083447666_2361885620924213057_n. jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=tU250FbEBvQAX-uvU_-&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=10d4688bcfe3e585efdd50ceb1630f9f&oe=60F625B1

Edited in an effort to stay on topic:

I think what the science says is that vaccination rates are lower in low income and majority minority areas. There are probably many diverse reasons for this having little to do with political leanings.

I think facts also suggest that Republican governors are more likely to prohibit the power of their states to diminish their constituents civil liberties, even during a pandemic. The constant refrain we hear on these forums that Republicans want people to die is a gross distortion of fact and are only allowed to be published because conservative Republicans who are comfortable with differences of opinion run the site. Of course, that's just my opinion but I believe anyone can see the truth is in the proverbial pudding. ;)

[catherine]

I was a very serious Catholic. First book I remember reading was The Lives of the Saints. Wanted to be a nun. 12 years of Catholic school. Had an altar in my bedroom.
My DH was an "orange" Protestant, and when he proposed and we planned our wedding, I agreed to getting married in a Protestant church because those Scottish Presbyterian relatives wouldn't have set foot in a Catholic Church. To me, I figured, we say the same Lord's Prayer and Apostle's Creed so what's the difference? I have sometimes regretted that decision because Catholicism is deeply ingrained in me, but I stand by it.

I'm as liberal as you can get, but I'm married to a Republican Protestant. What I don't like is the politicization of religion. I don't get Evangelical Trumpers--I really don't. I once asked my husband if he considered himself an American first or a Christian first. If people are serious about their religion, I think they should stand by that, and "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render to God the things that are God's." That's why there's separation of Church and State.

[frugal-one]

Church and state should not mix IMO.

[frugal-one]

Great then since it’s so straightforward and clear-cut for you, please tell me what “the Science “says about any one of the questions above. Or all of them.

You can read as well as any of us.

[Rosemary]

I don't have time to review and summarize the most recently published scientific findings, but I can give you the sources for doing that: Pubmed and Google Scholar.
For example,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=long+covid (Just go to pubmed.gov and enter your search terms)
https://scholar.google.com/

[iris lilies]

I don't have time to review and summarize the most recently published scientific findings, but I can give you the sources for doing that: Pubmed and Google Scholar.
For example,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=long+covid (Just go to pubmed.gov and enter your search terms)
https://scholar.google.com/


Yes I know about pub med. I wanted a shortcut because we have so many people here who are so very knowledgeable about the science and who like to lecture me. I just wonder what the lecture of the moment is, I mean besides Republicans are bad and want to kill people.

But on another note, I do have genuine interest in discussing aspects of Covid outside of a political context (like the Long Covid issue) ‘tho I know that that is not possible for certain posters here.

[Teacher Terry]

Alan, that’s really cool about the church!

[Alan]

Alan, that’s really cool about the church!I thought so too. Special dispensation from Pope Leo XIII to have dual faiths in the same building was given to the American Cardinal and was in turn delivered by a local Bishop to the church in 1908.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[iris lilies]

An article about loss of taste and smell (common Long Covid symptom) says about one fifth of Covid patients have lingering effects although they do not cite their source for that.

20% is a lot.

[iris lilies]

I thought so too. Special dispensation from Pope Leo XIII to have dual faiths in the same building was given to the American Cardinal and was in turn delivered by a local Bishop to the church in 1908.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Cute little church!

[Jane v2.0]

An article about loss of taste and smell (common Long Covid symptom) says about one fifth of Covid patients have lingering effects although they do not cite their source for that.

20% is a lot.

I've heard of one person whose only symptom was loss of smell/taste; she's long since recovered after several months, but her taste still hasn't completely returned.

https://www.vumc.org/coronavirus/latest-news/five-things-know-about-smell-and-taste-loss-covid-19

[befree]

just a quick google search states long-haul symptoms in anywhere from 10-35% post-COVID patients. These figures come from studies cited by UC Davis, CDC, and JAMA, which I consider reliable. Cleveland Clinic, also quite well-known and reliable, says that about 98% of the current COVID cases are being seen in those who haven't had a vaccine. I have no opinion on objective scientific data. My conclusion is that people oughta get vaccinated, since if you get COVID you might end up with long-term symptoms...or dead.

[catherine]

i would LOVE to know what % of Covid sufferers experience Long Covid to a debilitating degree. I suppose we could assume “Long Covid” IS debilitating or else we wouldnt be studying it tho.

Then…how long does Long Covid last? Someone in my condo has it and she says she’s on a discussion forum for Long Covid. She said people report waking up one morning and poof it is gone. I do think it’s possible that we don’t know how long it lasts because we haven’t been in the disease bubble long enough to have good data and of,course “Long “ is longer for some than for others.

Finally, what are the top symptons of Long Covid?

Answers from this source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-202010152479

[B][I]"Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has speculated that long COVID likely is the same as or very similar to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)."
"The most common symptoms are fatigue, body aches, shortness of breath, difficulty concentrating, inability to exercise, headache, and difficulty sleeping. Since COVID-19 is a new disease that first appeared in December 2019, we have no information on long-term recovery rates."

From here: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/long-term-effects-of-coronavirus-long-covid/

How long it takes to recover from COVID-19 is different for everybody.Many people feel better in a few days or weeks and most will make a full recovery within 12 weeks. But for some people, symptoms can last longer."

"Published studies and surveys conducted by patient groups indicate that 50% to 80% of patients continue to have bothersome symptoms three months after the onset of COVID-19 — even after tests no longer detect virus in their body."

[Simplemind]

A year and a half after having Covid my sister is still on two inhalers, her blood pressure is all over the place, cognitive issues and deep fatigue. My daugher in law still has stomach problems, cognitive issues and deep fatigue eight months out.

[iris lilies]

The cognitive issues I did not know about.

There doesnt seem to be a clear answer on % of patients with Long Covid.

20%
10-35%
50-80%

The latter seems too high but I would believe 10-35%.

[Jane v2.0]

"Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has speculated that long COVID likely is the same as or very similar to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)."

I suddenly feel a lot smarter, as that's what I wrote a few posts ago, off the top of my head. But we're in the very early stages of learning about this disease.

[pinkytoe]

I think we are still so in the thick of this that it will be years before we understand all its effects.

[JaneV2.0]

The cognitive issues I did not know about.

There doesnt seem to be a clear answer on % of patients with Long Covid.

20%
10-35%
50-80%

The latter seems too high but I would believe 10-35%.

I imagine the statistics are squishy because only the most debilitating cases are reported.

[happystuff]

A year and a half after having Covid my sister is still on two inhalers, her blood pressure is all over the place, cognitive issues and deep fatigue. My daugher in law still has stomach problems, cognitive issues and deep fatigue eight months out.

I'm sorry your sister and dil are still dealing with long-term issues. I hope they both are able to fully recover soon!

I agree with pinkytoe and others that we are still in the thick of this and there is still so much to learn about the initial virus, let alone the variants.

[iris lilies]

Sometimes “the science” is actual fraud. All of the noise around ivermectin as a possible savior in the Covid game, mostly taken up by The Wrong Political Side, is now exposed as likely faux research.

It wasn’t an Anglo centric research facility anyways that put out the initial data, it was a University in Egypt. So probably someone can make a race issue out of that, but whatever.

so the scientific method of peer analysis and scrutiny seems to have worked on this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

[ApatheticNoMore]

The research on Ivermectin has always seemed and seems to me inconclusive. But yea it's taken up by conspiracy theorists. It didn't help their credibility that most of the laypeople on the ivermectin wagon were the same that had jumped on the hydroxycholine wagon. Gah you conspiracy nuts are burning up your credibility fast. You are like ALWAYS WRONG. But ok, it's a different drug, we don't know what we don't know, trails can be done yada yada.

But the main question here in the U.S. that interests me isn't whether it works or not, we'll find out eventually, but is why in the U.S. where we have vaccines does it even matter much? The vaccines have far more proof of being effective than Ivermectin. We have vaccines! There is a small percentage of the population for whom vaccines don't work (due to immune issues) I suppose of course. But for the most people, we have vaccines.

I can see the desperation for other treatments in the rest of the world where vaccines are still scarce of course. They have a crisis with no way to deal with it. Of course anywhere without access to the vaccines is desperately for anything that could work to stop the deaths.

[herbgeek]

Thanks for that IL. My husband is one of the right wing whackos who is convinced ivermectin is the answer and refuses to get vaccinated. Sigh. He keeps showing me "studies" that he reads and interprets as something completely different than I interpret. This is someone who is smart and good at math, and he mis reads mis interprets the data in front of him.

The only thing in his favor is that he's a hermit and rarely leaves the house, so he's unlikely to pick up anything. But I can't in good conscience travel with him anywhere, because he also refuses to wear a mask unless its legally mandated.

[JaneV2.0]

I thought most of the anti-vaxxers consider COVID-19 a hoax or think God is their anti-viral, so I don't know why they need drugs...:D

[iris lilies]

Thanks for that IL. My husband is one of the right wing whackos who is convinced ivermectin is the answer and refuses to get vaccinated. Sigh. He keeps showing me "studies" that he reads and interprets as something completely different than I interpret. This is someone who is smart and good at math, and he mis reads mis interprets the data in front of him.

The only thing in his favor is that he's a hermit and rarely leaves the house, so he's unlikely to pick up anything. But I can't in good conscience travel with him anywhere, because he also refuses to wear a mask unless its legally mandated.
Um my DH considers himself a scientist and he may have been on the ivermectin train, I don’t remember. Seems like we talked about it briefly.I don’t think he approaches social issues in a logical way at all (cough cough his family drama over his father’s estate) but when I pin him down on his thought processes about things that seem fringe, he can sometimes convince me that there is a reasonable thought process going on there.



My unvaccinated DH will willingly wear a mask without complaint, but since nearly all of our social interactions take place outdoors, I do not nag him about it if he doesn’t have one on outside.

[JaneV2.0]

Science, being a human endeavor, is almost by definition fraught with all the same frailties as any other: greed, ego, politics, etc. all come into play, which is why I'm wary of blindly following it. But it's still the best tool we have.

[iris lilies]

Science, being a human endeavor, is almost by definition fraught with all the same frailties as any other: greed, ego, politics, etc. all come into play, which is why I'm wary of blindly following it. But it's still the best tool we have.
It is an excellent tool. Its false prophets are the ones that we have to watch.

[herbgeek]

I thought most of the anti-vaxxers consider COVID-19 a hoax or think God is their anti-viral, so I don't know why they need drugs...

My spouse is agnostic at best, and was worrying that Covid was real well before I was really aware of it (January-ish 2020). So there's this odd cognitive dissonance going on. He's smart and capable yet dismisses mainstream science theory and embraces conspiratorial "science" on this specific item. He's convinced the only reason we don't hear about it is because there is no money to be made - well that is likely correct, but you'd think that at least the manufacturer (Merck) would be willing to sponsor trials and they aren't.

I told him I didn't want to continue to hear about unless/until there is a double blind study that shows some reasonable correlation. An anecdotal write up of 30 participants doesn't cut it for me. Yet even though he embraces these small anecdotal stories are "that's proof!", he dismisses the fact that many millions of folks in the world have gotten a covid vaccine with minimal side effects- and certainly few side effects attributed to THIS vaccine versus side effects that happen frequently with ANY vaccine (eg rashes, fever).

[ApatheticNoMore]

I thought most of the anti-vaxxers consider COVID-19 a hoax or think God is their anti-viral, so I don't know why they need drugs...

there seem to be different factions. Some think covid is horribly serious (that's not wrong, it is *fairly* serious) but have all sorts of conspiracies about vaccines not working etc.. So they are stockpiling Ivermectin etc.. They aren't coming out of the foxhole, and WWII never ended (if you get vaxxed and still take any precaution that might have 1% chance of working, vitamin D, vitamin X, gargle with salt water, out of an abundance of caution, well this doesn't really harm anyone).

But yea there seem a lot of people with pretty inconsistent positions or whose only position is to distrust any mainstream (or "liberal" - it's in the New York Times!) position on anything. And vaccines are political because, well because vaccines developed under the Trump administration are a Biden conspiracy or something, I don't know, vaccines are political umkay.

So a lot of people will argue vaccines don't work because there is an outbreak in vaccinated people here or there, and when you trace it down, it turns out none have serious infections, it's just somewhere where they were doing a lot of testing. You know these vaccines might meet a variant they can't handle, I'm just not really seeing it. I could be convinced though.

[iris lilies]

And then there are the deliberate hoaxes in”the science:”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/virginiahughes/grievance-studies-sokal-hoax

We talked about this sometime ago but I’d like to bring it up again because it’s so damn funny. It may not belong here exactly because any thinking person will understand there’s a difference between the hard sciences and the soft sciences of which gender sociological studies are the latter.

This Buzzfeed article summarizes how 3 academics set out to fool colleagues with completely ridiculous research papers and succeeded in getting many accepted for publication.

i found this comment from Sarah Richardson possibly even more ridiculous than the entire hoax.Lady, the hoaxer do not NEED a “control”. You Gatekeepers ushered them into the inner academic sanctum , you were supposed to be The Control.

“For all of the hoaxers’ emphasis on scientific rigor, their experiment doesn’t have a control,” said Sarah Richardson, a professor of the history of science and of studies of women, gender, and sexuality at Harvard University. “By their own standards, we can’t scientifically conclude anything from it.”

[ApatheticNoMore]

For many things there will Never Be a double blind study at least on a large scale, it's too huge an endeavor, that's why other types of studies are used.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Science, being a human endeavor, is almost by definition fraught with all the same frailties as any other: greed, ego, politics, etc. all come into play, which is why I'm wary of blindly following it.

pressure to publish, bias to publish results that show some correlation versus those that show none (negative results are just as valid scientifically as studies that show something), endless data mining of a study (that's part of what was done for the controversial Alzheimers drug that got approved, but data mining an experiment IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT, it's gone beyond the bounds of experimental science then), of course drug industry bias (they show more positives results than neutral parties) etc..

[catherine]

For many things there will Never Be a double blind study at least on a large scale, it's too huge an endeavor, that's why other types of studies are used.

There are tons of double-blind studies for most health/medical things--placebo-controlled studies are the bare minimum that a respected medical body would accept. Most of the studies are done and paid for by companies with a vested interest, but many are funded by non-profits or the government. These days when it comes to drugs the medical community usually clamors for head-to-head double-blind studies which ups the ante.

But you are right--in certain situations, double-blind studies are either impractical or too expensive. That's where the meta-analyses come in handy.

It really is far too early to come up with any clear-cut conclusions on COVID with any scientific rigor.

[pinkytoe]

Herbgeek's spouse and DH must be brothers. Even the hermit part. Yesterday, I mentioned possibly flying by myself since I am vaccinated and we still have credits; unvaxed DH started in with how some airlines aren't letting recently vaxed passengers fly due to potential blood clots. When he says these odd things, I sometimes do a fact check and see that they are either bogus or greatly exaggerated. It is hard living with the irrational thinking this has brought upon us. It makes me think less of him which is not a good way to feel about one's spouse.

[catherine]

On this topic, one of my former market-researcher-colleagues-turned-real-estate-professional posted this on Facebook.

3858

[befree]

iris lilies, the article from "buzzfeed" (not at all what I would consider a reliable source, unlike Harvard, CDC, and other actual SCIENTIFIC sources) references b.s. papers submitted from people in the humanities field - gender studies would fall under psychology or sociology fields, not hard science. And even then, most of the reputable journals in the humanities field rejected these nonsense papers. That's why I say look at reputable sources - buzzfeed and most laypeople don't even begin to understand the concepts of validity, reliability, reproducibility, and other components of scientific method. Giving equal credence to science and not-science is comparing apples to oranges. If people think an article quoted on reddit is "scientific proof" no wonder they're confused. This leads to another, larger issue. Americans are not being taught critical thinking skills in order to evaluate what they read/hear. And they, like the rest of the world, need to develop special computer evaluation skills, in this age of Internet disinformation, deep fakes, and out and out lies.

[happystuff]

Herbgeek's spouse and DH must be brothers. Even the hermit part. Yesterday, I mentioned possibly flying by myself since I am vaccinated and we still have credits; unvaxed DH started in with how some airlines aren't letting recently vaxed passengers fly due to potential blood clots. When he says these odd things, I sometimes do a fact check and see that they are either bogus or greatly exaggerated. It is hard living with the irrational thinking this has brought upon us. It makes me think less of him which is not a good way to feel about one's spouse.

You are vaccinated, right? If so, when? I got my second vaccine shot mid-April and just flew home yesterday (after flight out a week ago).

[ApatheticNoMore]

Oh I am glad I don't have the white Republican male partner problem :)

All my life, finding a partner I could think with was important to me. To discuss how many angels really do fit on the head of a pin? Maybe, maybe. But there are times it actually matters in real reality, like reacting to a global pandemic for instance, life tends to throw curves, but not grade on them.

Only J&J even had blood clot issues right? So does pregnancy, likely at much higher rates. ACK, no women should get pregnant ever!!! (maybe that's a good idea but not for that reason ;)) So do birth control pills right? Ack no woman should prevent pregnancy ever!!!

[iris lilies]

Herbgeek's spouse and DH must be brothers. Even the hermit part. Yesterday, I mentioned possibly flying by myself since I am vaccinated and we still have credits; unvaxed DH started in with how some airlines aren't letting recently vaxed passengers fly due to potential blood clots. When he says these odd things, I sometimes do a fact check and see that they are either bogus or greatly exaggerated. It is hard living with the irrational thinking this has brought upon us. It makes me think less of him which is not a good way to feel about one's spouse.

oh yes, the “blood clot “ scare has been floated in my house because I do mention my plan to go to Europe and leave DH at home.

But in reality right now, I have no desire to pack myself like a sardine into a plane and stand in line with hundreds of people and walk through their air spray and etc.

My DH meets up with a fair number of people, he isnt a hermit. But it is all outdoors. He walks each day with our friends when he is in the city. Up until recent weeks he interacted regularly with the construction crew in
hermann (none of whom are vaccinated according to him. I wonder about that, though.)

[jp1]

The ivermectin fans fascinate me. I’ve come across a few online and they all were dead set against the vaccines because they don’t feel that they have been adequately tested. Yet they have been far more tested than ivermectin…

Back to the original topic of this thread, this article is an interesting look at some of the research that has been going on. Apparently people’s immune systems seem to be the problem for many of the people with serious cases. Roughly 10% of people who had serious infections have immune antibodies that prevent their bodies from mounting an interferon response. This is typical for people that have autoimmune diseases but most of these patients had not previously been diagnosed with such or presented previously with any symptoms of such.

https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covid-19-deadly?utm_source=ucsf_fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=2021_mag_covidimmunology&fbclid=IwAR2gA6N0e2aaA6B5fSSbpWEPTsLK4YMFNyvrU7cos PdKtCDxwolo33U26q8

[Alan]

Oh I am glad I don't have the white Republican male partner problem :)

You're behind the times, apparently progressive women prefer to date conservative men. Why progressive women want to date men who act conservative (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/)

[iris lilies]

The ivermectin fans fascinate me. I’ve come across a few online and they all were dead set against the vaccines because they don’t feel that they have been adequately tested. Yet they have been far more tested than ivermectin…

While I don’t wish to argue the value of ivermectin in general or in the specific because I just don’t know that much about it (except as a canine drug for heartworm prevention, so yeah, I have more experience with it than you) this right here is a bold statement that is just wrong if you are trying to represent a point of view other than your own.

You are wrong, and you misunderstand a basic premise of those you argue against.

Ivermectin has been around for decades and used in humans for parasite control in wide populations. That is a good test.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

The COVID vaccines have been used on wide populations for only months. And still not approved by the FDA.

Seems reasonable to me to be more concerned about one than the other.


Back to the original topic of this thread, this article is an interesting look at some of the research that has been going on. Apparently people’s immune systems seem to be the problem for many of the people with serious cases. Roughly 10% of people who had serious infections have immune antibodies that prevent their bodies from mounting an interferon response. This is typical for people that have autoimmune diseases but most of these patients had not previously been diagnosed with such or presented previously with any symptoms of such.

https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covid-19-deadly?utm_source=ucsf_fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=2021_mag_covidimmunology&fbclid=IwAR2gA6N0e2aaA6B5fSSbpWEPTsLK4YMFNyvrU7cos PdKtCDxwolo33U26q8


This seems like an authoritative source that shows some positive use in vitro for Ivermectrin combating COVID. At least, that is what rhe abstract says.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Once again, not an entirely fringe point of view to think Ivermectin MIGHT have properties that combat COVID 19.

[Jane v2.0]

That was an excellent article. COVID may lead to a better understanding of immune malfunctions in general, down the line.

[ApatheticNoMore]

You're behind the times, apparently progressive women prefer to date conservative men.

many of those things I regard as peripheral, so either way is okay really, no biggie. If the bill is split or not split, I always offered to split, but whatever. But a lot of traditional masculine stuff, did not work for me, I bumped up against it hard enough times. Almost enough to turn one off men forever.

The evolutionary psychologist who would tell me what to want can get bent. BTW, women are always being told what we ought to want, aren't we? That's just being a woman, right, you ought to want this, you ought to do that, blah blah blah forever. Even worse if they presume to tell us what we really want (please mansplain it to me). Well, turns I want a man with a little more Anima. Revealed preference baby. How is that for psychology (and economics too!).

[ApatheticNoMore]

So Ivermectin is probably safe but may or may not do anything against Covid. Meanwhile vaccines are so far extremely effective against Covid, but may have some long term consequence we don't know about not even in theory, but just because they are too new to have long term safety data.

[herbgeek]

So Ivermectin is probably safe but may or may not do anything against Covid. Meanwhile vaccines are so far extremely effective against Covid, but may have some long term consequence we don't know about not even in theory, but just because they are too new to have long term safety data.

Ivermectin from what I have looked at, has been used against parasites for many years with few side effects, so if my husband takes it, it is not likely to harm him. I'm not convinced it is helping him, of course, but that's different than if he were taking something else that was untested just because an unknown doctor got 30 people to say it worked for them. If I thought the ivermectin was unsafe, conversations in my house would be different.

I do agree that we don't know long term effects of this vaccine. I weighed the risks of dying now versus dying later. I also went with the J+J vaccine, which while its "new" has used the same platform to develop it that it did for their ebola vaccine which has been commercially available for a number of years, and I couldn't find any significant effects listed for the Ebola one.

[iris lilies]

Ivermectin from what I have looked at, has been used against parasites for many years with few side effects, so if my husband takes it, it is not likely to harm him. I'm not convinced it is helping him, of course, but that's different than if he were taking something else that was untested just because an unknown doctor got 30 people to say it worked for them. If I thought the ivermectin was unsafe, conversations in my house would be different.

I do agree that we don't know long term effects of this vaccine. I weighed the risks of dying now versus dying later. I also went with the J+J vaccine, which while its "new" has used the same platform to develop it that it did for their ebola vaccine which has been commercially available for a number of years, and I couldn't find any significant effects listed for the Ebola one.
Agreed.
I’ve said here before that I weighed my options And decided the Covid disease was far worse threat for me than the Covid vaccines. I used to have a very good immune system but I was sick with the never ending crud in 2019, so I’m not sure how strong my immune system is at the moment.

My immune system has always been better than that of DH, but I’m not so sure it is now. He almost always has a reaction to vaccines anyway although this is a new type so I don’t know if it would be better but it would probably be worse because psychology.

[Jane v2.0]

You're behind the times, apparently progressive women prefer to date conservative men. Why progressive women want to date men who act conservative (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/)

I only got a few paragraphs into that article before I gave up in disgust. I might consider dating a conservative male of the Steve Schmidt/Michael Steele variety, but I'm with ANM--don't tell me what I'm supposed to do, or how I'm supposed to feel about it. And I'll continue to pay my own way and express myself however I choose to without being over-concerned with convention.

[jp1]

Covid is a parasite? That’s a new theory I’d not heard. If so the. Maybe ivermectin will work for it. But surely all the ‘the vaccines were rushed!!!’ Folks will wait until full on studies are done to test its effectiveness on covid. Or not since logic doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

[jp1]

You're behind the times, apparently progressive women prefer to date conservative men. Why progressive women want to date men who act conservative (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/why-progressive-women-want-to-date-men-who-act-conservative/)

They’ll love their conservative men until they, like my mom back in 1954 shortly after getting married, was in line to vote right behind her new husband and when she pointed out to the poll worker (who couldn’t find her registration) that she was in a different party from her husband the woman shouted to my dad, now in the voting booth, ‘what’s a matter? You can’t keep her in line? Hardy har har’.

[Alan]

Covid is a parasite? That’s a new theory I’d not heard. If so the. Maybe ivermectin will work for it. But surely all the ‘the vaccines were rushed!!!’ Folks will wait until full on studies are done to test its effectiveness on covid. Or not since logic doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.
I'm not familiar with the ivermectin theory but I do understand that other medications such as cholesterol and blood pressure meds greatly decrease the effects of covid. Are you certain that it's illogical to think other meds might do the same?

[Alan]

They’ll love their conservative men until they, like my mom back in 1954 shortly after getting married, was in line to vote right behind her new husband and when she pointed out to the poll worker (who couldn’t find her registration) that she was in a different party from her husband the woman shouted to my dad, now in the voting booth, ‘what’s a matter? You can’t keep her in line? Hardy har har’.
Yes, you've told us previously that we're all assholes. We think it's cute. ;)

[jp1]

That article also reminds me of the very old joke in the LGBT world that is based off of the supposed evolutionary influences of men wanting to spread their seed far and wide and women wanting someone to help raise a kid.

A: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

A: A uhaul.

A: What does a gay man bring on a second date?

A: What’s a second date?’

[iris lilies]

Covid is a parasite? That’s a new theory I’d not heard. If so the. Maybe ivermectin will work for it. But surely all the ‘the vaccines were rushed!!!’ Folks will wait until full on studies are done to test its effectiveness on covid. Or not since logic doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

If you’re implying I said the novel virus COVID-19 is a parasite, I said no such thing. Ivermectin has been administered for decades in wide populations and its ill effects are known, unlike current Covid vaccines administered for only months.

therefore, reluctance to take Ivermectin is less than the reluctance to take a new vaccine.

As for Ivermectin effectiveness against COVID, There must be something causing trained scientific researchers to examine Ivermectin in relation to Covid. An example is referenced below where a literature review written up in the Journal Of American Therapeutics covers MANY such research projects.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

I offer this to refute your apparent distain for the very idea of Ivermectin as a possible prevention for COVID. I say POSSIBLE. One taken seriously enough to have big bucks research going on. please note I did not say anyone has shown firm evidence of effective treatment of COVID by Ivermectin.

I did not say that and in fact referenced an important research project revealed as bad science in my post #33 on this thread.

[jp1]

Sure. Ivermectin MAY be effective for covid. I’m simply pointing out the double standard of ‘THESE VACCINES ARE ONLY BEING GIVEN BECAUSE OF AN EUA APPROVAL’. But on the other hand ‘THEY ARE PREVENTING US FEOM TAKING IVERMECTIN THAT WORKS GREAT AGAINST COVID’ despite no studies that confirm that.

And the fact that ivermectin is effective for parasites is meaningless when one is discussing covid. All that means is that ivermectin probably won’t kill people who take it for covid.

[iris lilies]

Sure. Ivermectin MAY be effective for covid. I’m simply pointing out the double standard of ‘THESE VACCINES ARE ONLY BEING GIVEN BECAUSE OF AN EUA APPROVAL’. But on the other hand ‘THEY ARE PREVENTING US FEOM TAKING IVERMECTIN THAT WORKS GREAT AGAINST COVID’ despite no studies that confirm that.

And the fact that ivermectin is effective for parasites is meaningless when one is discussing covid. All that means is that ivermectin probably won’t kill people who take it for covid.

After paragraphs and paragraphs I guess you’re aware that I don’t think “taking Ivermectin… Works great against Covid.”

So who exactly are you addressing here?

[jp1]

You were the one trying to explain why people are going ‘ivermectin! Ivermectin!’ I was simply explaining why those same people are inconsistent in their logic.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's really like much of alternative medicine. There may not be much evidence for it, but it's *probably* not harmful. Ginko biloba may not improve your memory, but it probably won't kill you. Oh wait bad example the FDA approved Alzheimers drug probably also doesn't improve your memory.

[herbgeek]

What I've read is that ivermectin binds to the ACE2 receptor, which is where covid would bind, giving the virus no way to enter the cell and reproduce.

[JaneV2.0]

That article also reminds me of the very old joke in the LGBT world that is based off of the supposed evolutionary influences of men wanting to spread their seed far and wide and women wanting someone to help raise a kid.

A: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

A: A uhaul.

A: What does a gay man bring on a second date?

A: What’s a second date?’

And yet, there you are.
Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.

[LDAHL]

And yet, there you are.
Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.

I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.

[iris lilies]

I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.

Some stereotypes are more equal than others.

[iris lilies]

iris lilies, the article from "buzzfeed" (not at all what I would consider a reliable source, unlike Harvard, CDC, and other actual SCIENTIFIC sources) references b.s. papers submitted from people in the humanities field - gender studies would fall under psychology or sociology fields, not hard science. And even then, most of the reputable journals in the humanities field rejected these nonsense papers. That's why I say look at reputable sources - buzzfeed and most laypeople don't even begin to understand the concepts of validity, reliability, reproducibility, and other components of scientific method. Giving equal credence to science and not-science is comparing apples to oranges. If people think an article quoted on reddit is "scientific proof" no wonder they're confused. This leads to another, larger issue. Americans are not being taught critical thinking skills in order to evaluate what they read/hear. And they, like the rest of the world, need to develop special computer evaluation skills, in this age of Internet disinformation, deep fakes, and out and out lies.
Yes, I’m aware that BuzzFeed is a popular website. The same summary appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Forbes, the Atlantic, etc. — popular press with more established credentials.

My fault for referring to this hoax as “the Science “ a phrase I use sarcastically although academics in (what I call) soft sciences would likely take offense at your term “not-science.”

To better summarize:
The Center for Disease Control would not, of course, have reviewed the hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian et al because the CDC has nothing to do with “the Science “ of the hoax.

Boghossian’s team hoaxed academic journals that represent themselves as engaging in objective research in important fields of race, gender, ethnicity. The team’s premise was “critical” studies scholars will validate anything in line with their bias, their worldview.

They wrote ridiculous articles within that worldview after studying the literature of these disciplines to see what would fly.

I disagree with your characterization of their success. They wrote 20 articles. 7 were published. 7 were rejected. The others were in some phase of acceptance when the hoax was revealed. But really, the fact that they got 2 faux articles with ridiculous content accepted is concerning for academic freedom and scholarly standards, I dont need more examples.The team characterized one publication that accepted their article about canine rape culture in dog parks as being a leading journal in the field of feminist and gender studies.Is it a “leading journal?” I dont know, do you? Seems like it takes itself pretty seriously. It is Gender, Place and Culture.

You may think the hoax team didnt prove their case. Maybe they didn’t (and I link a good evaluation of their hoax below with that point of view.)

What they DID do was point out to me and to the general public who enjoyed the whole episode:

1) there is apparently a lack of verification of supposed factual research by scientific method coming into the publication stream of at least this esteemed journal, if not others

2) this is representative, not a one-off example

2) nonsense, obvious ridiculous material, is treated seriously, carefully, and even at times held up as good scholarship

To myself and many in the general populace who were amused and possibly appalled by the hoax, this is representative of a lack of true scholarship and critical thinking. They make dumb ideas acceptable. Academia is SUPPOSED to be engaging in critical thinking, but if they aren’t who is? The Twitterverse?

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html

this is a good counter of the hoax team although I can’t help but laugh at the author finding that the team has underlying sexist (or genderist?) intent.

[iris lilies]

The ivermectin fans fascinate me. I’ve come across a few online and they all were dead set against the vaccines because they don’t feel that they have been adequately tested. Yet they have been far more tested than …

q8 (https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covid-19-deadly?utm_source=ucsf_fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=2021_mag_covidimmunology&fbclid=IwAR2gA6N0e2aaA6B5fSSbpWEPTsLK4YMFNyvrU7cos PdKtCDxwolo33U26q8)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393


Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? July 28, 2021

Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.….


..,The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19) that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/MRK) & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.…

Excerpts:
Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated.
Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.
If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous.
At the bottom of the FDA’s warning against ivermectin is this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Is this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.

[jp1]

How does the FDA comment about other off label uses of drugs? Was their warning out of character for them? It sounds like the fans of ivermectin probably aren’t going to harm themselves after they get it from their vet but all the ‘why are we being forced by the jack booted government to take an unapproved vaccine’ people, if they wanted to be logically consistent, would also not be taking a drug that hasn’t had any sort of large scale tests for effectiveness against covid.

[iris lilies]

How does the FDA comment about other off label uses of drugs? Was their warning out of character for them? It sounds like the fans of ivermectin probably aren’t going to harm themselves after they get it from their vet but all the ‘why are we being forced by the jack booted government to take an unapproved vaccine’ people, if they wanted to be logically consistent, would also not be taking a drug that hasn’t had any sort of large scale tests for effectiveness against covid.

I don’t know when the FDA decides to have a warning label on a drug that is not good for… Something other than what it’s prescribed for. Whatever prompts them to do that? I dunno, my tax dollars at work. You have to admit that as a consumer that seems fairly stupid, and it’s not at all common. The prescription drugs I have do not come with long list of “do not use for…”

But if you want to make this political and trace when this warning went up, it’s possible it even went up during the Trump administration that is if you want to blame Donald for it. Daddy Joe has only been in office a few months at this point.

I agree that taking an off-use drug seems silly when ignoring a more thoroughly tested one, but there is ALWAYS a contingent of those who resent the FDA for failing to approve whatever. I think of all the cancer play patients who flew to Mexico for treatments, but there are many others who await FDA approval and rail.

To me the bottom line is: WTF FDA in printing this warning on Ivermectin.

This morning I asked DH if he was going to steal our dog’s heartworm medicine, but he said no.

[iris lilies]

The CDC has a giant job in these Covid times, granted.

but—this short opinion piece from The Week is a nice summary of why “the science” is different from the prophets of “the science.” When, why, and especially HOW “the science” is communicated is as important as “the science” itself.

It is reasonable to not always trust the purveyors of what is represented to be scientific fact.

I included the entire article here which is really not kosher, but I was unable to get a link to work.


from The Week


https://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/private/s--zyz7N7vE--/f_auto,t_author-mobile@1/v1608450003/author-images/joelmathis.pngJOEL MATHIS (https://theweek.com/authors/joel-mathis)
JULY 30, 2021
The CDC's abysmal messaging (https://theweek.com/politics/1003199/the-cdc-messaging-delta-variant-vaccines)


https://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/upload/f_auto,t_primary-image-continuous-scroll-mobile@1/v1627661567/walensky.jpgIllustrated | Getty Images, iStock



Even at this stage of the pandemic, it can't be easy to be the CDC. The situation remains fluid — there are variants and vaccine hesitancy to deal with, meaning the road to something that looks like normalcy has been anything but straight. Americans want this whole thing to be over, and the agency makes a convenient target for the folks who are frustrated that we can't just move on, already.
Sometimes, though, the CDC makes life harder on itself — and undermines public confidence as a result.
That's what has happened this week. On Tuesday, the agency revised its guidance on mask-wearing, encouraging everybody — vaxxed and unvaxxed — to wear facial coverings when indoors. That made sense (https://theweek.com/coronavirus/1003117/cdc-mask-guidance) to me: With COVID-19 hospitalizations skyrocketing in much of the country, masking up could be a quick-acting measure to slow the spread while vaccination efforts continue. Not everybody was convinced, though. Some experts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/breakthrough-infections-cdc-data/2021/07/28/dcaaa6b2-efce-11eb-a452-4da5fe48582d_story.html) and commentators noted the CDC had issued its recommendations without providing the public with the evidence it used to make its decision.
"They're making a claim that people with Delta who are vaccinated and unvaccinated have similar levels of viral load, but nobody knows what that means," one researcher told The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/breakthrough-infections-cdc-data/2021/07/28/dcaaa6b2-efce-11eb-a452-4da5fe48582d_story.html). "It's meaningless unless we see the data."
That's an entirely reasonable expectation. Instead of providing that data right away, an anonymous official told the newspaper it would be "published imminently." On Thursday night — after two days of angry debates about masking — somebody leaked (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/) an agency presentation showing that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant have viral loads similar to unvaxxed persons. This is good to know. It would have been better to know on Tuesday.
Communications are a critical part of any public health effort. It's important to tell people not just what they should do to be safe, but why, and to show your work. By releasing its guidance before the data used to justify it, the CDC didn't so much put the cart before the horse as uncouple them entirely. Even with the data in place, we'd still see raucous debates over whether the agency's guidance is sound, and pushback from folks who won't do what the government says no matter what the facts might be. Without the data, though, it's easier for those opponents to portray the CDC's guidance as arbitrary and capricious. And that makes the fight to control the pandemic that much more difficult.

[ApatheticNoMore]

So the insurance companies should all pay for Invermectin prescriptions for covid now?

"The Science" is whatever you assume it is I guess. I mean a lot of people distrust the CDC to a degree, but since when is that "The Science"?

People will argue "oh the CDC didn't believe vaccinated people could transmit when they removed the mask requirements". But removing the mask requirements MADE NO SENSE ON IT'S OWN GROUNDS. They literally removed them before it was possible for people to be 6 weeks out from the first Moderna shot and 2 weeks out from the second.

The basic math: vaccines were approved for all except children here April 15th, CDC drops mask mandates May 13th. That's not 6 weeks, and that assumes one got the shot at the earliest time it was available for many, but there was a huge demand at that time, so that often wasn't possible. And the rest of us were all: don't drop the mask mandate. Give people A CHANCE to get the vaccine, not forever and ever, but a real good faith chance ...

Whether or not vaccinated people could transmit was still being worked out, but this basic math was just basic. The CDC was obviously wrong, come on they can add up weeks as well as I can. And throwing their weight behind trying to use removing masks as an incentive for vax hesitant people rather than making sure those who desperately want the vax are protected by masking until they can be fully vaxxed. Just why?

[frugal-one]

We received our 2nd shot on Feb 20. Different strokes for different folks?

[iris lilies]

So the insurance companies should all pay for Invermectin prescriptions for covid now?

"The Science" is whatever you assume it is I guess. I mean a lot of people distrust the CDC to a degree, but since when is that "The Science"?

People will argue "oh the CDC didn't believe vaccinated people could transmit when they removed the mask requirements". But removing the mask requirements MADE NO SENSE ON IT'S OWN GROUNDS. They literally removed them before it was possible for people to be 6 weeks out from the first Moderna shot and 2 weeks out from the second.

The basic math: vaccines were approved for all except children here April 15th, CDC drops mask mandates May 13th. That's not 6 weeks, and that assumes one got the shot at the earliest time it was available for many, but there was a huge demand at that time, so that often wasn't possible. And the rest of us were all: don't drop the mask mandate. Give people A CHANCE to get the vaccine, not forever and ever, but a real good faith chance ...

Whether or not vaccinated people could transmit was still being worked out, but this basic math was just basic. The CDC was obviously wrong, come on they can add up weeks as well as I can. And throwing their weight behind trying to use removing masks as an incentive for vax hesitant people rather than making sure those who desperately want the vax are protected by masking until they can be fully vaxxed. Just why?

I agree with you that the CDC does not have “the science” cornered. And certainly some of their directives can be questioned by reasonable people who aren't fringey lunatics.

[ApatheticNoMore]

We received our 2nd shot on Feb 20. Different strokes for different folks?

It wasn't available to everyone then. So no. They should have waited until widespread availability and time to get the vaccine and 6 weeks. We are of course there now, now the issue is transmiting. Or why wouldn't anyone and everyone cut in line if the CDC was just going to further endanger those who had patiently waited their turn because "well all the important people are already vaccinated" or something. A society where the little people are pressured to follow all the rules, but the authorities play fast and loose with them (don't even allow everyone who did, to get fully vaxed before masks that help protect them are removed) is not going to work.

[iris lilies]

We received our 2nd shot on Feb 20. Different strokes for different folks?
I have nomidea what “different strokes for different folks” even means here. I interpret it to mean “I got mine so f u to the rest of you.”

[frugal-one]

No.. she was talking about the number of weeks being relevant... "different strokes for different folks". We were lucky and got the vaccine the first day it was available here to those over 65.

[Jane v2.0]

No.. she was talking about the number of weeks being relevant... "different strokes for different folks". We were lucky and got the vaccine the first day it was available here to those over 65.

I was definitely a straggler--logistics being what they were--but I wasn't at risk or a threat to anyone else hunkered down here at Chez Decay.

[iris lilies]

I listened to virology professor Vincent Rancaniello on Lex Friedman’s podcast yesterday. Rancaniello is an educator who produces regular Youtube educational videos about virus science.

He says he was amazed that mRNA vaccines came out as quickly as they did, he didn’t think it was possible two years ago. We don’t have long-term proof that they are safe but there’s no indication they are not safe. He spoke briefly about ivermectin as being unproven but having potential. Apparently the real problem is dosage and timing.

He mentioned in passing that a friend was hospitalized for Covid recently and the hospital protocol included ivermectin. This jives with a physician last year on Mr. money mustache who said his hospital protocol included ivermectin.

The big social media sites like YouTube that are removing any news about ivermectin are shooting themselves in the foot, making them look uninformed and close minded. Censors be like that.

[flowerseverywhere]

I listened to virology professor Vincent Rancaniello on Lex Friedman’s podcast yesterday. Rancaniello is an educator who produces regular Youtube educational videos about virus science.

He says he was amazed that mRNA vaccines came out as quickly as they did, he didn’t think it was possible two years ago. We don’t have long-term proof that they are safe but there’s no indication they are not safe. He spoke briefly about ivermectin as being unproven but having potential. Apparently the real problem is dosage and timing.

He mentioned in passing that a friend was hospitalized for Covid recently and the hospital protocol included ivermectin. This jives with a physician last year on Mr. money mustache who said his hospital protocol included ivermectin.

The big social media sites like YouTube that are removing any news about ivermectin are shooting themselves in the foot, making them look uninformed and close minded. Censors be like that.

you note the real issue is dosage and timing. Listening to an opinion masquerading as a newscaster is the danger here. Ivermectin given in a controlled clinical setting as part of a treatment regimen is far different than picking up a livestock dewormer at a feed store and self administering it. Same with hydroxychloriquine.
When a sibling got Covid early on he consented to monoclonal antibodies when they did not have much data. It did not help as he apparently was outside the window when it was effective. Incidently the hospitals were full around him so he was treated in a tent. They were desperately doing everything to get the virus under control early on. Even things like putting patients on their stomachs were unknown at the beginning. But maybe studying cases like his helped develop life saving protocols. Unfortunately he now has long Covid.

[Yppej]

I recommend The Premonition: A Pandemic Story for an insight into how emergency responses are formulated by our government. It is well written and in my first day I got through a third of the book. It covers epidemiological science.

[iris lilies]

you note the real issue is dosage and timing. Listening to an opinion masquerading as a newscaster is the danger here.

This is exactly the problem I intended to bring out in this thread.

You have “The science” cornered while I do not, because you and your sources are superior. I am lesser because I listen to “an opinion masquerading as a newscaster.” This is what your sentence above conveys to me.

It is insulting. This kind of rhetoric is what drives this divide we have in COVID19 treatments.

I would trust Vincent Rancaniello over anything anyone on this forum has to say. He has no axes to grind, no political point to push, and he is facile at talking to people,about advanced scientific topics in ways they can grasp.

I agree with the rest of this:




Ivermectin given in a controlled clinical setting as part of a treatment regimen is far different than picking up a livestock dewormer at a feed store and self administering it. Same with hydroxychloriquine.
.

[LDAHL]

A certain breed of scapegoating requires the scapegoater to say “horse dewormer” and hope the masses will stop right there.

Look at the latest ivermectin media hoax, where sources like Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow uncritically amplified the bogus story that ignorant Oklahomans couldn’t be treated for gunshot wounds because the hospitals were full of ignorant Oklahomans who had overdosed on horse dewormer. It was catnip for Progressives: guns, stupid red state yokels, bogus remedies. No wonder it was too good to to check.

I think this disease has become hopelessly politicized. Look at the President’s recent series of legally questionable edicts. He could have made them any time, but somehow waited until it was convenient to distract attention from the degringolade in Afghanistan. Everyone seems to have an agenda that has little to do with “the science”.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Can it ever match the sneering one gets for getting a vaccine among that conspiracy set? For taking medicine that actually has a fair amount of evidence behind it, like I don't know vaccines that went through months of clinical trials.

I never heard of the invermectin media hoax (more stuff everyone is supposed to be on about that most people have never heard of), I have heard of high covid hospitalizations in some states though, I have heard that some of the evidence initially pushed for invermectin turned out to be bogus.

[iris lilies]

A certain breed of scapegoating requires the scapegoater to say “horse dewormer” and hope the masses will stop right there.

Look at the latest ivermectin media hoax, where sources like Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow uncritically amplified the bogus story that ignorant Oklahomans couldn’t be treated for gunshot wounds because the hospitals were full of ignorant Oklahomans who had overdosed on horse dewormer. It was catnip for Progressives: guns, stupid red state yokels, bogus remedies. No wonder it was too good to to check.

I think this disease has become hopelessly politicized. Look at the President’s recent series of legally questionable edicts. He could have made them any time, but somehow waited until it was convenient to distract attention from the degringolade in Afghanistan. Everyone seems to have an agenda that has little to do with “the science”.

I do understand that Dr. Faucci *Is* in a politically controlled environment. Likely he would be the first to agree. And I think he’s doing his best and it’s not a bad job. But he’s had some serious stumbles.

One podcaster recently said something to the effect that the Internet will suss out untruths and they will be revealed. They, the key clicking hoards, will get to truth in the end.

I agree with this, but as a practical matter there is so much noise and billions of idiotic posts to wade through that The Truth is often (usually?) obscured.

ANM I understand that you didn’t hear the Oklahoma-hospitals-overrun-with-Ivermectin-poisoning story and I applaud you for not looking at the five stories that day we were supposed to pay attention to.

And finally, LDahl, kudos to you for using “degringolade.” A word I do not know. I am pleased this took place on my high brow thread about “the science.” Way to keep up the standards!

[LDAHL]

I do understand that Dr. Faucci *Is* in a politically controlled environment. Likely he would be the first to agree. And I think he’s doing his best and it’s not a bad job. But he’s had some serious stumbles.

One podcaster recently said something to the effect that the Internet will suss out untruths and they will be revealed. They, the key clicking hoards, will get to truth in the end.

I agree with this, but as a practical matter there is so much noise and billions of idiotic posts to wade through that The Truth is often (usually?) obscured.

ANM I understand that you didn’t hear the Oklahoma-hospitals-overrun-with-Ivermectin-poisoning story and I applaud you for not looking at the five stories that day we were supposed to pay attention to.

And finally, LDahl, kudos to you for using “degringolade.” A word I do not know. I am pleased this took place on my high brow thread about “the science.” Way to keep up the standards!

I see the internet as similar to the old trope about enough monkeys at enough typewriters eventually producing Shakespeare. But you would have trouble finding it among infinite heaps of nonsense.

I’ve been looking to an excuse to use “hebdomadal” in a sentence ever since I heard it.

[catherine]

I’ve been looking to an excuse to use “hebdomadal” in a sentence ever since I heard it.

Does Santa give you a Word of the Day calendar every year?? I don't think your vocabulary would be that impressive with a hebdomadal calendar. (see what I did there?) :) You do have an impressive vocabulary. I looked up the etymology of both words--one from French meaning "to tumble" and one from the Latin meaning 7th (day of the week).

[iris lilies]

I see the internet as similar to the old trope about enough monkeys at enough typewriters eventually producing Shakespeare. But you would have trouble finding it among infinite heaps of nonsense.

I’ve been looking to an excuse to use “hebdomadal” in a sentence ever since I heard it.

Funny you should bring up the word “typewriter.” In the past couple of days I’ve been thinking about That Time I Was Wrong when the Internet hordes kept picking away at big respected News source CBS until they sussed out THE TRUTH about the George Bush/National Guard hoax letter. I remember driving to Iowa and listening to talk radio where so many callers were promoting the point of view that CBS was wrong, based on intricate analysis of typewriter technology at the time the letter was supposedly written. Endless freakin’ detail about key strikes, key options on old models of typewriters, etc etc.

I was wrong because I thought the chattering hordes were just making lots of noise.

I was wrong. The chattering hordes nailed it.

[iris lilies]

Can it ever match the sneering one gets for getting a vaccine among that conspiracy set?

oh of course.

And to bring this discussion back to this forum, have you seen anyone, any one poster, sneer at people for getting a vaccine? sneer, berate, wring hands…use all of those verbs.


Have you seen anyone, one poster, sneer at people for NOT getting a vaccine? Sneer, berate, wring hands, use all of those verbs.

[bae]

Moral equivalency. It's a tricky concept.

[ApatheticNoMore]

And to bring this discussion back to this forum, have you seen anyone, any one poster, sneer at people for getting a vaccine? sneer, berate, wring hands…use all of those verbs.

Have you seen anyone, one poster, sneer at people for NOT getting a vaccine? Sneer, berate, wring hands, use all of those verbs.

I have seen it elsewhere on the internet. We're stupid dumb sheep to believe in pharma and get a vaccine or something, much less to believe it provides much in the way of protection. Fine. BAAAA!!! BAAA!!! (sheep noise).

[LDAHL]

Funny you should bring up the word “typewriter.” In the past couple of days I’ve been thinking about That Time I Was Wrong when the Internet hordes kept picking away at big respected News source CBS until they sussed out THE TRUTH about the George Bush/National Guard hoax letter. I remember driving to Iowa and listening to talk radio where so many callers were promoting the point of view that CBS was wrong, based on intricate analysis of typewriter technology at the time the letter was supposedly written. Endless freakin’ detail about key strikes, key options on old models of typewriters, etc etc.

I was wrong because I thought the chattering hordes were just making lots of noise.

I was wrong. The chattering hordes nailed it.

I remember those simple, innocent times when GWB was evil incarnate. Even when the fraud was exposed, the Possessors of the Greater Truth that Transcends Mere Factuality defended it as “fake but accurate”.

[LDAHL]

Does Santa give you a Word of the Day calendar every year?? I don't think your vocabulary would be that impressive with a hebdomadal calendar. (see what I did there?) :) You do have an impressive vocabulary. I looked up the etymology of both words--one from French meaning "to tumble" and one from the Latin meaning 7th (day of the week).

I think I read both those words reading National Review, where they strive to preserve the William F Buckley tradition of refusing to write for the lowest common denominator. Some might call it supercilious pedantry, but I call it fun.

[LDAHL]

Moral equivalency. It's a tricky concept.

I forget who it was who said when people talk about “moral equivalency” they’re usually talking about levels of immorality.

[Alan]

Funny you should bring up the word “typewriter.” In the past couple of days I’ve been thinking about That Time I Was Wrong when the Internet hordes kept picking away at big respected News source CBS until they sussed out THE TRUTH about the George Bush/National Guard hoax letter. I remember driving to Iowa and listening to talk radio where so many callers were promoting the point of view that CBS was wrong, based on intricate analysis of typewriter technology at the time the letter was supposedly written. Endless freakin’ detail about key strikes, key options on old models of typewriters, etc etc.

I was wrong because I thought the chattering hordes were just making lots of noise.

I was wrong. The chattering hordes nailed it.
I thought it was interesting to watch Dan Rather bet his career on a document containing superscript and spacing examples which could not be reproduced by typewriters of the era in which it was supposedly produced. I'll bet he still lies in bed at night repeating "fake but accurate dammit!"

[iris lilies]

Moral equivalency. It's a tricky concept.
Nuanced opinions. Also tricky.

[bae]

Nuanced opinions. Also tricky.

The Pantone grey color space is quite varied.

[frugal-one]

A certain breed of scapegoating requires the scapegoater to say “horse dewormer” and hope the masses will stop right there.

Look at the latest ivermectin media hoax, where sources like Rolling Stone and Rachel Maddow uncritically amplified the bogus story that ignorant Oklahomans couldn’t be treated for gunshot wounds because the hospitals were full of ignorant Oklahomans who had overdosed on horse dewormer. It was catnip for Progressives: guns, stupid red state yokels, bogus remedies. No wonder it was too good to to check.

I think this disease has become hopelessly politicized. Look at the President’s recent series of legally questionable edicts. He could have made them any time, but somehow waited until it was convenient to distract attention from the degringolade in Afghanistan. Everyone seems to have an agenda that has little to do with “the science”.

As I exhibited earlier, these same "edicts" were already done in 1905 and 1922 and approved by the Supreme Court. Look it up.

[iris lilies]

As I exhibited earlier, these same "edicts" were already done in 1905 and 1922 and approved by the Supreme Court. Look it up.

I am not the legal scholar you are, but a cursory Googling showed the 1905 Jacobson case and the 1922 Virginia school board case* puts the Supreme Court’s seal of approval on state actions, not Federal.


Those cases dealt with state mandates.

There’s a difference between a state. And the feds. Our constitution recognizes that. That will play into whatever action President Biden puts out. We don’t really know what the directive will say because it hasn’t been published yet.

*Interestingly enough, that 1922 case justified quite a lot of things to be for the good of the public health including mandatory sterilization for people we thought should not reproduce. That was considered for the good of society. Whoah.

[LDAHL]

I am not the legal scholar you are, but a cursory Googling showed the 1905 Jacobson case and the 1922 Virginia school board case* puts the Supreme Court’s seal of approval on state actions, not Federal.


Those cases dealt with state mandates.

There’s a difference between a state. And the feds. Our constitution recognizes that. That will play into whatever action President Biden puts out. We don’t really know what the directive will say because it hasn’t been published yet.

*Interestingly enough, that 1922 case justified quite a lot of things to be for the good of the public health including mandatory sterilization for people we thought should not reproduce. That was considered for the good of society. Whoah.

People keep thinking that if they ignore federalism it will go away. They want an omnipotent all-father to take care of them, but don’t consider that the next exercise of arbitrary power might not take a form they like.

[Teacher Terry]

I found it funny that in 1905 some people were making the same arguments for the vaccine such as follow the science and anti-Vax people wanted their free dumb:)).

[iris lilies]

I found it funny that in 1905 some people were making the same arguments for the vaccine such as follow the science and anti-Vax people wanted their free dumb:)).

Yes, classic ideals of freedom are, well, classic and are , interestingly enough, embodied in our constitution.

If daddy Joe gets away with some of the things he’s floating, that will be unfortunate. As far as I’m concerned he can order federal employees to get a shot because he’s their employer. It’s not so clear cut to me the other directives.

[LDAHL]

I think we are hearing from the silly extremes at both ends of the spectrum. We have on one end people who consider masks and/or vaccines to be an intolerable imposition regardless of the public health consequences. On the other, we have vaccinated, mask-wearing people who seem to live in terror of the relatively small but measurable risk to them of the noncompliant; or that the scoffers will serve as Petrie dishes for new variants, which is probably true, although there are many other countries where that could happen even if the entire US were to be immune.

And we also have those who rather cynically use the disease as a cover for attacking politicians or their supporters, or as a distraction from other issues. This is where most of the silliest namecalling comes from.

Personally I think there are many areas where some of us impose risks on others at some level, and that we need to carefully consider how much “free dumb” we are willing to sacrifice for what may be an illusion of absolute security.

My guess is that Covid will eventually become endemic at some level similar to the flu. Like the flu, it will kill a certain number of us every year, but I doubt we will see calls for sweeping government powers to control it.

[Yppej]

Yes, covid will be endemic. What does the science say? In the link below it says that covid is not "the big one".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/29/who-warns-covid-19-pandemic-is-not-necessarily-the-big-one

Imagine if we have worn out the public's patience with restrictions and mandates, and pulled kids out of school and disrupted their education, all for a virus that the science says in the article below mainly affects old people in poor health:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/most-covid-19-hospitalizations-due-four-conditions

Then imagine a really dangerous pandemic comes and everyone thinks it's crying wolf again. This is a scary thing to envision.

[jp1]

Yes, covid will be endemic. What does the science say? In the link below it says that covid is not "the big one".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/29/who-warns-covid-19-pandemic-is-not-necessarily-the-big-one

Imagine if we have worn out the public's patience with restrictions and mandates, and pulled kids out of school and disrupted their education, all for a virus that the science says in the article below mainly affects old people in poor health:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/most-covid-19-hospitalizations-due-four-conditions

Then imagine a really dangerous pandemic comes and everyone thinks it's crying wolf again. This is a scary thing to envision.

Why is that scary? It’ll kill off the people who deserve to die and the rest of us will be fine. Sure, maybe the new ‘big one’ will think that a more sizable amount of the population deserve to die, but that just depends on one’s perspective of who deserves to die. People like me will be equally upset as we have been during covid and people who don’t particularly care about other people’s pain and suffering won’t care. And it’ll be a win as more people on the low end of the income ladder who manage to survive will get even more bargaining power as their ranks get diminished even more!

[Yppej]

It’ll kill off the people who deserve to die and the rest of us will be fine. Sure, maybe the new ‘big one’ will think that a more sizable amount of the population deserve to die, but that just depends on one’s perspective of who deserves to die. People like me will be equally upset as we have been during covid

No one is saying anyone deserves to die (though now that vaccines are available they are bringing death on themselves).

If you would be equally upset by covid as with something like the Black Death that wipes out a third of the population you might wish to rethink who is heartless here.

[jp1]

No one is saying anyone deserves to die (though now that vaccines are available they are bringing death on themselves).

If you would be equally upset by covid as with something like the Black Death that wipes out a third of the population you might wish to rethink who is heartless here.

I’m heartless because I think that selfish anti vax, anti mask folks are putting frail vaccinated people at avoidable risk of death? Interesting theory. And about as believable as sad sack sore loser Larry Elder’s claims of voter fraud in yesterday’s election.

[Yppej]

I’m heartless because I think that selfish anti vax, anti mask folks are putting frail vaccinated people at avoidable risk of death? Interesting theory. And about as believable as sad sack sore loser Larry Elder’s claims of voter fraud in yesterday’s election.

If you believe masks work - prior to covid were you a heartless person for not wearing a mask everywhere you went so frail people wouldn't catch the flu or some other ailment? Where does it ever stop?

[jp1]

If you believe masks work - prior to covid were you a heartless person for not wearing a mask everywhere you went so frail people wouldn't catch the flu or some other ailment? Where does it ever stop?

No. I was just unknowledgeable. Now I know better.

[Yppej]

No. I was just unknowledgeable. Now I know better.

I guess I'll die with my boots on and you'll die with your mask on.

[jp1]

I guess I'll die with my boots on and you'll die with your mask on.

Or live with it on since masks save lives. If I’m going to die on a hill it won’t be the hill of masks, it’ll hopefully be my favorite hill, Sweeney Ridge, with my hiking boots on. The discovery site of San Francisco would be a lovely hill to die on.

[pinkytoe]

On the topic of testing, my niece's son (age 12 with first shot only) was sent home to quarantine as routine quick testing done at his school showed him as positive for Covid. My niece was incredulous as this meant the whole family would have to quarantine as well as classmates and the health dept would list him as the initial contact. They took him to the local university hospital ER later that day and had the more accurate test done and it was negative. When they contacted the school with the new results, they were told the positive results had already been submitted to the health dept. and would not let him or classmates return to school. Makes one wonder how many of these quick tests are causing unnecessary chaos during these difficult times.

[iris lilies]

On the topic of testing, my niece's son (age 12 with first shot only) was sent home to quarantine as routine quick testing done at his school showed him as positive for Covid. My niece was incredulous as this meant the whole family would have to quarantine as well as classmates and the health dept would list him as the initial contact. They took him to the local university hospital ER later that day and had the more accurate test done and it was negative. When they contacted the school with the new results, they were told the positive results had already been submitted to the health dept. and would not let him or classmates return to school. Makes one wonder how many of these quick tests are causing unnecessary chaos during these difficult times.

well, the tests are not infallible. I dont expect ANYTHING in this Covid game to be infallible, and that includes Dr. Anthony “If you question Fauchi you question SCIENCE!!!” Fauchi.

[Yppej]

IL your buddy Rand Paul is fundraising over Fauci lies:

https://winred.randpaul.com/randpaul/action-09082021?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtMCKBhDAARIsAG-2Eu9qRElz3Zrjkfjvhw9L51zm5lHpoJRqtqtumRU00cg3ux2AG zh4bm8aAnGyEALw_wcB

[bae]

On the topic of testing, my niece's son (age 12 with first shot only) was sent home to quarantine as routine quick testing done at his school showed him as positive for Covid. My niece was incredulous as this meant the whole family would have to quarantine as well as classmates and the health dept would list him as the initial contact. They took him to the local university hospital ER later that day and had the more accurate test done and it was negative. When they contacted the school with the new results, they were told the positive results had already been submitted to the health dept. and would not let him or classmates return to school. Makes one wonder how many of these quick tests are causing unnecessary chaos during these difficult times.

Weird. In the more civilized nation I am currently residing in, if you get a positive result on the quick test, you can receive a better test and avoid quarantine. They also have a test-and release scheme for people in certain situations.

Maybe local school boards shouldn’t be making up processes….

[Yppej]

In the latest ridiculousness anyone in my state who needs surgery has to go first for a covid test, and the only approved tester is in Boston. So you have people driving an hour or two each way, often elderly people going into the big city. One guy went and got his negative test (you have to wait days for the results) only to find out the insurance company messed up the surgery preauthorization and it had to be rescheduled. So he had to make another trip from the hinterlands into Boston for another covid test.

This is like the early vaccine rollout when the governor wouldn't let community health centers who went and bought special freezers for this purpose administer shots because he wanted everyone to use a central website that kept crashing and to go far from home to big vaccine centers in places like Fenway Park.

The pandemic has eroded my confidence in government and medicine. I will not get a booster and I am not going to get certain other vaccines either.

[rosarugosa]

In the latest ridiculousness anyone in my state who needs surgery has to go first for a covid test, and the only approved tester is in Boston. So you have people driving an hour or two each way, often elderly people going into the big city. One guy went and got his negative test (you have to wait days for the results) only to find out the insurance company messed up the surgery preauthorization and it had to be rescheduled. So he had to make another trip from the hinterlands into Boston for another covid test.

This is like the early vaccine rollout when the governor wouldn't let community health centers who went and bought special freezers for this purpose administer shots because he wanted everyone to use a central website that kept crashing and to go far from home to big vaccine centers in places like Fenway Park.

The pandemic has eroded my confidence in government and medicine. I will not get a booster and I am not going to get certain other vaccines either.

I think the covid test might need to be administered by the hospital doing the surgery. I know my sister had to have a covid test at Milton Hospital before having a colonoscopy at Milton Hospital (which is not in Boston). Those people who had to be tested in Boston might have been having their surgeries in Boston, but I did not really delve into this.

[Yppej]

I think the covid test might need to be administered by the hospital doing the surgery. I know my sister had to have a covid test at Milton Hospital before having a colonoscopy at Milton Hospital (which is not in Boston). Those people who had to be tested in Boston might have been having their surgeries in Boston, but I did not really delve into this.

It was my impression the surgery was at UMass in Worcester in one case and at Baystate Franklin in Greenfield in the other but in both cases the person had to go to Boston for the test. But I could be wrong.

[Alan]

I think the covid test might need to be administered by the hospital doing the surgery.
My wife is having surgery on Tuesday to remove a cancerous tumor on her right kidney, an MRI tomorrow will let them know if the kidney must be removed as well. She had to have a covid test on Friday conducted at the hospital where the surgery will be performed, we received the results yesterday (Saturday), if it had come back positive the surgery would have been postponed. They insisted the test be performed on their premises in order to ensure quality control.

[rosarugosa]

My wife is having surgery on Tuesday to remove a cancerous tumor on her right kidney, an MRI tomorrow will let them know if the kidney must be removed as well. She had to have a covid test on Friday conducted at the hospital where the surgery will be performed, we received the results yesterday (Saturday), if it had come back positive the surgery would have been postponed.

Wishing your wife the best of luck with her surgery, Alan. My DH had a kidney removed due to a cancerous tumor in 2012 (the impetus for us to finally quit smoking - yes, that's what it took). The road has not been without some bumps, but I'm pleased to report that he is alive and well.

[Alan]

The road has not been without some bumps, but I'm pleased to report that he is alive and well.
She'll be glad to hear that, she's very concerned. We just found out about this on Monday after she had a CT scan for an unrelated issue. The unrelated issue turned out to be nothing but luckily it did show the tumor which may have taken some time for us to discover otherwise.

[happystuff]

Sending prayers and positive thoughts for your wife's surgery, Alan. And to you and those waiting in the wings for the results.

[Alan]

Thanks Happystuff!

[iris lilies]

Wow, that was shocking news on Monday. Wishing you both well Alan.

[jp1]

Wow Alan. Sorry to hear that. Add my best wishes for a successful operation and speedy recovery for your wife.

[bae]

Hope you folks have good outcomes, Alan!

[Jane v2.0]

She'll be glad to hear that, she's very concerned. We just found out about this on Monday after she had a CT scan for an unrelated issue. The unrelated issue turned out to be nothing but luckily it did show the tumor which may have taken some time for us to discover otherwise.

Kidney cancer caught early has an excellent survival rate--over 90%. It's funny how things work out sometimes.
Be thankful you don't live somewhere they're rationing care!

[Rogar]

Best wishes to you and your family, Alan.

[lmerullo]

Healing thoughts to Mrs. Alan!

[frugal-one]

Will be thinking of you both on Tuesday. Wishing all the best!!!

[Yppej]

Wishing the best for your wife Alan.

[Teacher Terry]

Alan, sending lots of love and light for your wife.

[pinkytoe]

Hoping your wife's surgery and healing go well.

[flowerseverywhere]

Alan, good luck to your wife. Please update her progress post surgery. I’m glad she could be treated so quickly.

[Tybee]

Alan, I am praying for you guys, take care.

[iris lilies]

Weird. In the more civilized nation I am currently residing in, if you get a positive result on the quick test, you can receive a better test and avoid quarantine. They also have a test-and release scheme for people in certain situations.

Maybe local school boards shouldn’t be making up processes….

Oh I think the local authorities should make policy and define process for their locale.

[bae]

Oh I think the local authorities should make policy and define process for their locale.

Well, I don’t know about your school board where you live, but the one where I live, well-meaning as it is, isn’t exactly expert on infectious disease control or designing efficient and reasonable processes. They can’t even quite manage to figure out how the traffic flow for student pickup/delivery is going to work right now.

I would have liked for someone with a clue to have issued districts a set of model covid protocols and suggested metrics to work from. Instead it seems to have been totally left up to each district to invent something. As a result, for example, my partner did not really know if her 4th grade classroom was going to be in-person or remote or blended until very shortly before there were supposed to be butts-in-seat, and little guidance was given on how to set up/operate the clsssroom until the last minute, and even then it was quite sparse.

[iris lilies]

Well, I don’t know about your school board where you live, but the one where I live, well-meaning as it is, isn’t exactly expert on infectious disease control or designing efficient and reasonable processes. They can’t even quite manage to figure out how the traffic flow for student pickup/delivery is going to work right now.

I would have liked for someone with a clue to have issued districts a set of model covid protocols and suggested metrics to work from. Instead it seems to have been totally left up to each district to invent something. As a result, for example, my partner did not really know if her 4th grade classroom was going to be in-person or remote or blended until very shortly before there were supposed to be butts-in-seat, and little guidance was given on how to set up/operate the clsssroom until the last minute, and even then it was quite sparse.

Of course they aren’t expert on infectious diseases nor would I expect them to be. I expect them to make reasonable decisions given the conditions in my locale. But I agree with you that a suggested model is the way to inform school district administrators, Assuming that the model takes into account conditions on the ground.