Coronavirus discussion thread (no political debates) VII

[Mess]

Discussion continued here as vaccine draws near to release.

REMINDER: Political Discussion is NOT PERMITTED

Click to read more...

 

[kb]

I didn't say that Hodkinson was a quack, just that you used him twice, that he's only one person, and that the sound-bite came from a speech that clearly politically motivated, delivered in a political forum. Regardless of credentials I'm going to question the opinion of anyone that says "just a worse flu, let her rip" when we can see what's happening in the states, what happened in Italy, what's starting to happen here. That skepticism is going to be further reinforced when they start lacing their communication with rhetorical like "lemmings" etc, because it signals to me that they're being (if not driven) heavily influenced by idealogy rather than public health.

As for Rancourt - it doesn't matter what he thinks. His opinion has no standing as an authority, intellectual or medical. He's a failed physics professor that doesn't like being told what to do.


Even if there aren't huge question marks behind the motivation of the "dissenters", a handful of contrary opinions doesn't mean that it's a heavily debated topic. Of course science by nature is never "closed", but *at this point* some of these opinions are akin to germ theory denialism.

I meant to put Beda Stadler of the Bern Institute in there too (I did in another post), and both him and Hodkinson are experts in their field - both highly respected. Again, Rancourt may be what you say he is, but let me state this again - that does not make him wrong. Hodkinson and Stadler agree on his point.

No one is saying that the virus isn't real, or isn't deadly to the elderly and immuno-compromised people. What is up for debate is the effectiveness of masks and social distancing.

In addition, the PCR test that is widely used was never intended to be a tool for diagnosing infection. Portugal just made it unlawful to quarantine based on a positive PCR test, as the current threshold of 35 cycles or more gives rise to a 97% false positive rate. The PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead viruses, as it was designed only to multiply samples.

Yet this is the very science that is the bedrock of the current policies (PCR test + mask + social distancing).

I am just saying let's not close the door and make this a slam dunk. It should be ok to have debate on a position since all 3 appear to have at least some question marks. Echo chambering is dangerous because it excludes all debate on a topic.

 

[Nineteen67]

@Wafflewhipper i wouldn’t make a policy to lockdown a functioning economy because a very very very small percent of the population could contract a virus in a split second between a doorknob and hand sanitizer station. Especially a cold or flu virus.

 

[4thline]

I meant to put Beda Stadler of the Bern Institute in there too (I did in another post), and both him and Hodkinson are experts in their field - both highly respected. Again, Rancourt may be what you say he is, but let me state this again - that does not make him wrong. Hodkinson and Stadler agree on his point.

No one is saying that the virus isn't real, or isn't deadly to the elderly and immuno-compromised people. What is up for debate is the effectiveness of masks and social distancing.

In addition, the PCR test that is widely used was never intended to be a tool for diagnosing infection. Portugal just made it unlawful to quarantine based on a positive PCR test, as the current threshold of 35 cycles or more gives rise to a 97% false positive rate. The PCR cannot distinguish between live and dead viruses, as it was designed only to multiply samples.

Yet this is the very science that is the bedrock of the current policies (PCR test + mask + social distancing).

I am just saying let's not close the door and make this a slam dunk. It should be ok to have debate on a position since all 3 appear to have at least some question marks. Echo chambering is dangerous because it excludes all debate on a topic.

Hodkinson came damn close. “There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season." That is neither true- we've seen spread significantly slowed by varying degrees of measures, nor is it practical (or for that matter ethical).

He's also a pathologist, not a virologist or epidemiologist. He may be the best damn pathologist in whole world, that doesn't make him credible in the other two relevant fields especially when weighed against a near consensus by the experts in those fields.

Stadler I would give more credence to. But testing is a damn if you do/ damned if you don't issue. We need the advance indicator or any outbreak is going to be completely out of control before we know it's there.

Reposting from an edit

I'll admit, it may be projection on my part. But from what I've seen most of the arguments against mask wearing, social distancing, lock downs come from an idealogical space that's simply against telling people what do to, and are seeking arguments against those directives. My biggest flag for that is the inclusion of "just protect the vulnerable", which generally comes partnered with a complete lack of plan of how do so (my favorite is "let them choose how much risk they can handle"), as well as a complete ignorance to the scope of the "vulnerable", how herculean of task it would be to actually protect them, and how devastating -morally, economically, socially- if we failed to so.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

What's the flavour today?

Should I hide in my house?
Worry about a rushed vaccine turning my brain to mush?
Go about my day as normal because it's a hoax?
Take to the streets because they are stealing my freedom?
Or just wash my hands, wear a mask and smile?


Do tell

 

[Wafflewhipper]

@Wafflewhipper i wouldn’t make a policy to lockdown a functioning economy because a very very very small percent of the population could contract a virus in a split second between a doorknob and hand sanitizer station. Especially a cold or flu virus.

Haha. I wouldn’t either. I was thinking more along the lines it should be outdoors before contamination if its on hands. After all stopping the spread is key. Son i never seen the likes.

Edit: i was just after saying we all can do a better job at it and stop the spread better. We have to get all on the same page here. It’s not about anything else but slowing this down until a vaccine. Stats are kagging 14-21 days right now likely. 2 week circuit breakers are a option with everything stopped but essential needs. There has to be forethought on this not reactionary measures that are being communicated by supposed leadership. We are 8 months in and the path has been as crooked as a corkscrew. There should have been a straight line nation wide by the formation of a “National Policy”.

Everyone is not on the same page near as much as initially. That’s frustrating everyone i believe. Support your local community is vital nonetheless if a lockdown happens. That said,drink at home,we don’t need bars open.

 

[4thline]

What's the flavour today?

Should I hide in my house?
Worry about a rushed vaccine turning my brain to mush?
Go about my day as normal because it's a hoax?
Take to the streets because they are stealing my freedom?
Or just wash my hands, wear a mask and smile?


Do tell

Hide in the streets because a hoax vaccine is stealing your smile.

All bases covered.

To any russian sleeper agent activated by reading that phrase, I apologize.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Shutter down haha. I see posts it’s against your freedoms ha. I think people do a darn good job all by themselves taking away their freedom. Mortgage poor and dept poor is the biggest drag on freedoms going and most do exactly that.
Screeming and moaning about the cost of living and driving a truck that costs a hundi. Me, I’ll drive my Silverado into the ground maintenance only for a old scow rocks. I have all kinds of fun with that money on big party ( in normal times haha). Doin what i want for years driving old tanks. I’m always ready to do whatever i want. Financial dept is modern day slavery. Live the simple life as much you can a d be happy for it Leafers. Party lots too. lifes to short for details

 

[Nineteen67]

What's the flavour today?

Should I hide in my house?
Worry about a rushed vaccine turning my brain to mush?
Go about my day as normal because it's a hoax?
Take to the streets because they are stealing my freedom?
Or just wash my hands, wear a mask and smile?


Do tell

Always wash yourself good before going out to face the day. No need to wear a mask as long as you brush your teeth. Show your smile, live your life.

 

[Nineteen67]

Haha. I wouldn’t either. I was thinking more along the lines it should be outdoors before contamination if its on hands. After all stopping the spread is key. Son i never seen the likes.

Edit: i was just after saying we all can do a better job at it and stop the spread better. We have to get all on the same page here. It’s not about anything else but slowing this down until a vaccine. Stats are kagging 14-21 days right now likely. 2 week circuit breakers are a option with everything stopped but essential needs. There has to be forethought on this not reactionary measures that are being communicated by supposed leadership. We are 8 months in and the path has been as crooked as a corkscrew. There should have been a straight line nation wide by the formation of a “National Policy”.

Everyone is not on the same page near as much as initially. That’s frustrating everyone i believe. Support your local community is vital nonetheless if a lockdown happens. That said,drink at home,we don’t need bars open.

You can’t stop the spread of aerosolized virus. You just have to live with it.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

You can’t stop the spread of aerosolized virus. You just have to live with it.

Oh just can it.

 

[kb]

Hodkinson came damn close. “There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season." That is neither true- we've seen spread significantly slowed by varying degrees of measures, nor is it practical (or for that matter ethical).

He's also a pathologist, not a virologist or epidemiologist. He may be the best damn pathologist in whole world, that doesn't make him credible in the other two relevant fields especially when weighed against a near consensus by the experts in those fields.

Stadler I would give more credence to. But testing is a damn if you do/ damned if you don't issue. We need the advance indicator or any outbreak is going to be completely out of control before we know it's there.

Reposting from an edit

I'll admit, it may be projection on my part. But from what I've seen most of the arguments against mask wearing, social distancing, lock downs come from an idealogical space that's simply against telling people what do to, and are seeking arguments against those directives. My biggest flag for that is the inclusion of "just protect the vulnerable", which generally comes partnered with a complete lack of plan of how do so (my favorite is "let them choose how much risk they can handle"), as well as a complete ignorance to the scope of the "vulnerable", how herculean of task it would be to actually protect them, and how devastating -morally, economically, socially- if we failed to so.

The thing about Hodkinson is that being an expert in pathology, he is very well qualified to speak about how this virus behaves in the body. It's also known that the virus is smaller than almost any mask of any type can filter out - especially the ones we see daily.

I keep hearing about this near consensus, but I don't really see the full-scale evidence of such other than echoing. In fact, I see more and more are now willing to speak out. That - plus the lack of meaningful studies - show there is more that needs to be understood.

We have no real proof mask wearing is effective. What is needed is a cohort that wears masks and social distances, and another that doesn't - in a completely controlled setting. Then compare. That's the scientific method. Otherwise it is pure guesswork if there is any benefit whatsoever. Right now it is purely speculation. Some highly infected areas are also areas with the strictest of measures. If it was working, we should have seen see huge drops in numbers. That was not the case (other than the expected drop due to season). For me, my biggest flag is saying that we need to isolate and mask healthy people (thereby compromising the immune system of everyone). Limiting overall exposure weakens your immune system, and that is a scientifically based conclusion.

I am not saying to go out and lick each other. (lol) But by potentially compromising/weakening everyone's immune system through mask wearing, hyper cleanliness, and isolation, it might very well put the whole population at greater risk in addition to those who were already at risk. I simply don't feel the answer is by compromising healthy immune systems.

These people are coming out at great risk to themselves and their careers and have everything to lose by doing so. This should not be the case.

We are on the same side here. We just see things differently. And that is OK.

 

[4thline]

Echo chambering is dangerous because it excludes all debate on a topic.

Going behind the curtain to debate the topic and explain why I dismiss the sentiments of the likes of Hodkinson almost out of hand.

Short version- they're cognitively dissonant on a very fundamental level, and IMO indicative of a level of frustration with the situation that has lead to a (conscious or not) desire to see a "cut the gordian knot" solution- basically "f*** it this is too hard, let's do something else, I've convinced myself that something else isn't that bad."

Following use of "you" not meaning kb, just someone with Hodkinson's views


Thought experiment step 1.
If you truly believed that masks and or social distancing (whether in isolation or together have zero value) in mitigating the spread, than it stands to reason that if we removed those measures there would be no increased spread, no surge in symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, deaths. Given what we've seen around the world with what happens with uncontrolled spread that would be a ... leap.

Step 2
You dissonantly accept that masks and social benefit have no benefit, but acknowledge that without them the vulnerable will be placed at enough increased risk to require special protection. The spread would increase, but it's NOT because those measures that were stopped were working.

How do you protect them if masks and social distancing are of no benefit and the virus is spreading out of control like a "normal flu season"?
You've ruled out the less invasive measures, so it's almost impossible without complete isolation from the "normies." Doing so would be economically disastrous, impractical to the point of impossibility due to cohabitation, and far more ethically/constitutionally questionable than any universal mask mandate or lockdown, because it would be quite literally legislative discrimination based on age and or disability. If you fail to do it, you overwhelm the health system, cause tens of thousands to die, and trash the economy as fear/conscience has people making lifestyle choices differently anyway.


Side note- when a supposed expert bins the 0-64 cohort together despite the literally exponential difference in the level of risk - he's either got a bad understanding of what he's talking about and how statistics are used, or is being misleading to make a point. I'm willing to give pathologist the benefit of the doubt on understanding the pitfalls of binning, which makes him dishonest as shit.

Edit in after seeing your next post- is it not completely contradictory to argue against masks and distancing BOTH because we don't know if it reduces transmission/exposure to pathogens AND because it compromises our immune systems because it reduces its exposure to pathogens?

 

[pylon17]

Shutter down haha. I see posts it’s against your freedoms ha. I think people do a darn good job all by themselves taking away their freedom. Mortgage poor and dept poor is the biggest drag on freedoms going and most do exactly that.
Screeming and moaning about the cost of living and driving a truck that costs a hundi. Me, I’ll drive my Silverado into the ground maintenance only for a old scow rocks. I have all kinds of fun with that money on big party ( in normal times haha). Doin what i want for years driving old tanks. I’m always ready to do whatever i want. Financial dept is modern day slavery. Live the simple life as much you can a d be happy for it Leafers. Party lots too. lifes to short for details

Just wanted to say that I agree with you here

 

[Sens]

Trudeau just talking

I would not expect a vaccine to hit the masses until 2022

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Just wanted to say that I agree with you here

Atta boy

 

[stealth1]

The thing about Hodkinson is that being an expert in pathology, he is very well qualified to speak about how this virus behaves in the body. It's also known that the virus is smaller than almost any mask of any type can filter out - especially the ones we see daily.

I keep hearing about this near consensus, but I don't really see the full-scale evidence of such other than echoing. In fact, I see more and more are now willing to speak out. That - plus the lack of meaningful studies - show there is more that needs to be understood.

We have no real proof mask wearing is effective. What is needed is a cohort that wears masks and social distances, and another that doesn't - in a completely controlled setting. Then compare. That's the scientific method. Otherwise it is pure guesswork if there is any benefit whatsoever. Right now it is purely speculation. Some highly infected areas are also areas with the strictest of measures. If it was working, we should have seen see huge drops in numbers. That was not the case (other than the expected drop due to season). For me, my biggest flag is saying that we need to isolate and mask healthy people (thereby compromising the immune system of everyone). Limiting overall exposure weakens your immune system, and that is a scientifically based conclusion.

I am not saying to go out and lick each other. (lol) But by potentially compromising/weakening everyone's immune system through mask wearing, hyper cleanliness, and isolation, it might very well put the whole population at greater risk in addition to those who were already at risk. I simply don't feel the answer is by compromising healthy immune systems.

These people are coming out at great risk to themselves and their careers and have everything to lose by doing so. This should not be the case.

We are on the same side here. We just see things differently. And that is OK.

I am fine with people having different opinions and people seeing things differently. What I am not ok with is the ones who push the NWO agenda and putting chips in people. IMO it stems from the ones who don't understand what's going on and need to a reason for the shutdowns and restrictions.

 

[Chevboyarsky]

Hodkinson came damn close. “There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season." That is neither true- we've seen spread significantly slowed by varying degrees of measures, nor is it practical (or for that matter ethical).

He's also a pathologist, not a virologist or epidemiologist. He may be the best damn pathologist in whole world, that doesn't make him credible in the other two relevant fields especially when weighed against a near consensus by the experts in those fields.

Stadler I would give more credence to. But testing is a damn if you do/ damned if you don't issue. We need the advance indicator or any outbreak is going to be completely out of control before we know it's there.

Reposting from an edit

I'll admit, it may be projection on my part. But from what I've seen most of the arguments against mask wearing, social distancing, lock downs come from an idealogical space that's simply against telling people what do to, and are seeking arguments against those directives. My biggest flag for that is the inclusion of "just protect the vulnerable", which generally comes partnered with a complete lack of plan of how do so (my favorite is "let them choose how much risk they can handle"), as well as a complete ignorance to the scope of the "vulnerable", how herculean of task it would be to actually protect them, and how devastating -morally, economically, socially- if we failed to so.

Honest question, as I believe any issue is multi faceted. If we should "trust the science" (which I agree with in a holistic approach. I.e. the interconnectivity of all sciences), shouldn't we also listen to the experts in the fields of addiction/mental health/psychology/social workers etc. etc. who are anti lockdowns (which also includes the WHO?).

Or does trusting the science only apply to virologists/epedimiologists? I personally believe science as the word describes is just "knowledge". We should incorporate all knowledge and make the best decision for the greatest number (which seems like a democratic approach). So I can understand people who are anti changing the face of society for 1% (no not that 1%). The same people who are bleeding hearts for some, are completely ignoring the deaths of a great many others. Seems like wilful ignorance, which is ironically the term they use to try and silence opponents.

So yeah, between the rhetoric of opposing ideologies it gets pretty messy. The best way forward is to actually HAVE the conversations and acknowledge that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle which won't make anybody happy cause nobody gets to win. In other words, we're all losers

 

[kb]

Going behind the curtain to debate the topic and explain why I dismiss the sentiments of the likes of Hodkinson almost out of hand.

Short version- they're cognitively dissonant on a very fundamental level, and IMO indicative of a level of frustration with the situation that has lead to a (conscious or not) desire to see a "cut the gordian knot" solution- basically "f*** it this is too hard, let's do something else, I've convinced myself that something else isn't that bad."

Following use of "you" not meaning kb, just someone with Hodkinson's views


Thought experiment step 1.
If you truly believed that masks and or social distancing (whether in isolation or together have zero value) in mitigating the spread, than it stands to reason that if we removed those measures there would be no increased spread, no surge in symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, deaths. Given what we've seen around the world with what happens with uncontrolled spread that would be a ... leap.

Step 2
You dissonantly accept that masks and social benefit have no benefit, but acknowledge that without them the vulnerable will be placed at enough increased risk to require special protection. The spread would increase, but it's NOT because those measures that were stopped were working.

How do you protect them if masks and social distancing are of no benefit and the virus is spreading out of control like a "normal flu season"?
You've ruled out the less invasive measures, so it's almost impossible without complete isolation from the "normies." Doing so would be economically disastrous, impractical to the point of impossibility due to cohabitation, and far more ethically/constitutionally questionable than any universal mask mandate or lockdown, because it would be quite literally legislative discrimination based on age and or disability.


Side note- when a supposed expert bins the 0-64 cohort together despite the literal exponential spread in the level of risk - he's either got a bad understanding of what he's talking about and how statistics are used, or is being misleading to make a point.

Step 1.

This is the time of the year where there are surges in all illness, not just Covid. It's seasonally based, and not adjusting for that predictable rise that would be rather disingenuous. No leap required, it is statistically verifiable. That is why there is a flu season, and not consistent flu numbers all year. So any surge in Covid must be viewed through this same lens. When Hodkinson said it's like a flu - this is exactly what he means.

Step 2.

How much research and money has been put into strengthening the immune system of those who are the most at risk? The fact that there is a demonstrable link between Vitamin D3 deficiency and not only Covid, but most illnesses, should be a huge flag as to what direction we should be focusing efforts. Anecdotally, I have been sick once in the past 12 years, and I used to get one or more of bronchitis, strep, and pneumonia on a near annual basis since I was a child. (I am very immuno-compromised).

This is were there should have been research and much cause for hope, but most of the money goes into finding a "cure" when there should be significant money earmarked for studies on prevention. This is even less invasive, and shows much greater promise and effectiveness than mask wearing or social distancing. But sadly, crickets....

So let me try to understand this.....you want to lockdown healthy people to protect the immuno-compromised? I am trying to understand....as this seems draconian and even more discriminatory than the opposite - as there is no medical or ethical justification for keeping healthy people locked up and away from each other, while simultaneously weakening their immune systems. That would seem rather counter intuitive, and definitely counterproductive to the end goal of eradication.

He was making a point that you have almost no chance of dying of this if you are under the age of 65. That is the case for almost every known illness - Covid included. That point extends far beyond just Covid.

Again, I am not saying I know all the answers. But we need to look at all angles on this.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Honest question, as I believe any issue is multi faceted. If we should "trust the science" (which I agree with in a holistic approach. I.e. the interconnectivity of all sciences), shouldn't we also listen to the experts in the fields of addiction/mental health/psychology/social workers etc. etc. who are anti lockdowns (which also includes the WHO?).

Or does trusting the science only apply to virologists/epedimiologists? I personally believe science as the word describes is just "knowledge". We should incorporate all knowledge and make the best decision for the greatest number (which seems like a democratic approach). So I can understand people who are anti changing the face of society for 1% (no not that 1%). The same people who are bleeding hearts for some, are completely ignoring the deaths of a great many others. Seems like wilful ignorance, which is ironically the term they use to try and silence opponents.

So yeah, between the rhetoric of opposing ideologies it gets pretty messy. The best way forward is to actually HAVE the conversations and acknowledge that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle which won't make anybody happy cause nobody gets to win. In other words, we're all losers

If someone is in a burning car but if you move them they could be paralyzed. Do you let them burn or let them live paralyzed. Everything is fluid and checks and balances have to be in place for everyone.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

I bet AA meetings on Zoom are much more bearable when you can adjust your camera and pour yourself a nice stiff one and settle in. Pack a bowl and go for a whiz when someone is talking by blaming it on your poor connection. Lol, i told my great bud that the other day when we were talking about his quitting drinking with help of AA.
Make fun of things people. Six feet back or six feet under,your choice

Edit: had to run there but... This guy was entitled to nothing when he had to pull himself up from the bottom. Bill piled up when he was in rehab nobody cared enough then to carry the torch for him but his buds and family. They went through hell and having a close family and friends are the key to anything. Keep it real and be cool to each other ffs

 

[Chevboyarsky]

If someone is in a burning car but if you move them they could be paralyzed. Do you let them burn or let them live paralyzed. Everything is fluid and checks and balances have to be in place for everyone.

Sorry, who specifically is in the car? The 70-90 year old who dies from Corona virus or the middle aged working person who commits suicide/beats his wife/becomes poor because he/she lost their business. Must be nice telling the plebs how they should live from your ivory tower.

Edit: Also, terrible analogy and you didn't really respond to the meat of what I wrote. You decided to respond with a condescending question which has no basis in the conversation to try and establish your moral and intellectual superiority. I see through you. Not surprised you are the most avid poster in here. You just love seeing your name on every page. Don't change, it wouldn't suit you.

 

[kb]

I am fine with people having different opinions and people seeing things differently. What I am not ok with is the ones who push the NWO agenda and putting chips in people. IMO it stems from the ones who don't understand what's going on and need to a reason for the shutdowns and restrictions.

Well, I sincerely hope you are right. It is detailed on the Canadian government website. I am not pushing any agenda here - it is mainstream.

What it is.....is yet to be determined.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Sorry, who specifically is in the car? The 70-90 year old who dies from Corona virus or the middle aged working person who commits suicide/beats his wife/becomes poor because he/she lost their business. Must be nice telling the plebs how they should live from your ivory tower.

Are you asking me or telling me. This just a theory to you or waaaaa. Haha “who’s in the car”. Seriously, who’s in the car haha holy f****

 

[DaWatcher]

Sorry, who specifically is in the car? The 70-90 year old who dies from Corona virus or the middle aged working person who commits suicide/beats his wife/becomes poor because he/she lost their business. Must be nice telling the plebs how they should live from your ivory tower.

Edit: Also, terrible analogy and you didn't really respond to the meat of what I wrote. You decided to respond with a condescending question which has no basis in the conversation to try and establish yourbmoralband intellectual superiority. I see through you.

Be careful, they will label you a Russian troll/bot for simply having a different opinion.