COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,285 comments
  • 646,768 views
I don’t find the things I read convincing enough to take the vaccine. We have kept hearing the same worsening stories for almost two years now and yet everyone I know personally or know peripherally has always tested negative.
I don't know anyone with Ebola, what the hell is all the cause of concern over, bruthas?
I’m not saying it’s fake, as I’m sure the vaccine can really benefit the weak an elderly. Though, the urge to inject the vaccine into every part of the population doesn’t add up when you look at fatality rates and the lack of uniqueness in long-term complications. Despite of this they constantly try to scare us into taking the vaccine anyway, so propaganda definitely comes to mind.
What are you talking about? Covid literally sprang to a Top 3 cause of death in the US in a year. It exudes a variety of concerning issues that are becoming more and more well-documented. You are consistently relying on whataboutism by bringing up the complications of other diseases as if that makes Covid's long-term effects any more safer.
Yes I very much have, and the critical questions I have asked on Google always come back unanswered. It’s like their algorithms intentionally filter out results reflecting valid concerns, and instead it feeds me with the same manipulative articles and stories we’ve heard repeatedly.
"I can't find any sources that confirms my preconceived and unwavering misinformation. Google must be in on it."
I bet those founders also struggled with diseases far more lethal than what we’re battling now. By the way, you keep saying fake news… I simply urge people to think for themselves when things don’t add up.
What difference does it make? You've twice made a hoopla about your freedoms and democracy, and act like mass vaccination is some new idea. Don't make an attempt to shift the goal.
 
Last edited:

5is8t1.jpg
 
Is this Malone person to be trusted? I don't know but if proven otherwise I trust his explanations and judgment.
Can't speak for him, but I think any platform billing him as the inventor of mRNA vaccines is acting in bad faith.
 
Last edited:
I don't know anyone with Ebola, what the hell is all the cause of concern over, bruthas?
You have completely lost sense of reality if you think ebola and delta corona disease are comparable.
What are you talking about? Covid literally sprang to a Top 3 cause of death in the US in a year. It exudes a variety of concerning issues that are becoming more and more well-documented. You are consistently relying on whataboutism by bringing up the complications of other diseases as if that makes Covid's long-term effects any more safer.
I’m talking about statistics. Raw numbers speaking for different age groups. With that in mind it’s still not surprising if corona disease has been the third largest fatal illness over the past year. Keep in mind that it has swiped across the entire planet during a time where the weak and elderly everywhere had access to no bespoke vaccines at all.
"I can't find any sources that confirms my preconceived and unwavering misinformation. Google must be in on it."
Seeking answers to valid and unanswered questions is not the same as seeking misinformation. Not at all.

What difference does it make? You've twice made a hoopla about your freedoms and democracy, and act like mass vaccination is some new idea. Don't make an attempt to shift the goal.
I never argued mass vaccination is something new. I argue that people should think for themselves before accepting a completely new vaccine lacking rationale for injecting the entire population.
 
Last edited:
Is this Malone person to be trusted?
No. He made a breakthrough in some part of the mRNA field decades ago (not at the time vaccine related, as I understand it). He did not invent mRNA vaccines - that took many steps along the way - so it's a hugely exaggerated claim (essentially false) originally made to add credence to his consulting firm.

The 'paper' he's lending his support to in the first video consists of a mess of conspiracy theories, lies and half-truths - look for yourself and I dare you to try and persuade me that it's a serious scientific analysis (there's a link in the video's description).

Besides, why trust him and not the countless other people who have made breakthroughs in the field? Why base your judgement on trust and not data? It's one thing to see that first video and wonder whether they have a point, it's quite another to accept it uncritically or based on trust just because it supports what you fear. Look further and attempt to verify any of the main points they are making - 'think for yourself' should mean to actually go out and do that work. Do that, and it quickly becomes clear they can only be trusted to present an extremely twisted fear-mongering version of the truth, and that it's pointless paying them any more attention.

A very common deliberate misrepresentation of data is claims that the Adverse Reaction Report statistics show something that they do not. For example, there might be thousands of reports of miscarriage. It sounds bad, and they were all after having the vaccine. But if you have about the same number of miscarriages amongst people who hadn't had the vaccine, then it's not because of the vaccine. Any time you hear a big scary number like that without a proper comparison*, it is deliberately designed to mislead; to persuade rather than inform.

* - a vague 'higher than normal' isn't sufficient. If the amount more than normal isn't provided, it's being deliberately hidden.
 
Last edited:
Some good analysis here:

I hoped that booster shot will be delta specific, but it looks like that's not the case, at least not for now.


I was planning to get booster shot in January (six months after second shot), maybe delta specific vaccine will be ready by that time.
 
I know about the damage covid-19 can cause and I'm definitely worried about that, without a doubt. There is a possibility that I will get infected one day because nobody can keep up the vigilance and the corona safety measurements forever. I will probably make a mistake one day with a possible bad outcome but with the virus I still have a choice >> try not to get infected. With the vaccine I don't have a choice. Once vaccinated you can't get un-vaccinated. I don't want to live with the fear for many years if I'm vaccinated thinking what is going to happen with my body, with my health.
I went to the pub (indoors) for the first time in a year tonight, and my first dinner with friends in a pub in 18 months.

I completely share your worries on getting COVID, and have done my utmost to avoid infection too... but as you say yourself, it is probably not going to be feasible to avoid it forever.

My hope is that COVID will become less of a risk as new treatments are found, but the same logic applies to treatments as to vaccines... they're not going to be 100% effective and they will remain "experimental" for years to come - indeed, considerably more so than vaccines that have already been established to be both very safe and very effective. (It's both amazing and alarming how people decry vaccines as 'dangerous' but also believe in the ability of a veterinary pharmaceutical commonly used to treat worm infestations in horses as if it is some kind of miracle drug...)

The question then becomes: how much of your life are you willing to forego in order to avoid infection, knowing that for every year you take this evasive action, you become more susceptible to more severe illness if/when you do catch it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to belittle genuine fears over the possible long-term effects of the vaccines, but they have to be weighed against both the known risks of the virus itself and the costs of spending an indefinite amount of time trying to avoid getting the virus.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if I hadn't already had been infected but never knew it... there are millions of people in the UK alone who have already been infected but never tested positive or had any symptoms. But... the trouble is that you don't know what will happen if/when you get infected, except for the only proven defence available right now (and possibly ever) which is to get vaccinated.

Yes, the vaccines are not 100% effective and are also not 100% guaranteed not to cause adverse reactions, but there's a mountain of evidence already available that shows that infection with the virus is many, many times more likely to make you ill than the vaccine, and that the cost of the 'avoidance' strategy (which I wholly supported prior to vaccines being available) also needs to be taken into account too. Indeed, the evidence of the negative effects of 'lockdown' (whether voluntary or otherwise) is all too clear, and hence we really need to be doing everything within our power to avoid future lockdowns - and vaccination is an absolutely fundamental part of that strategy.

In terms of who to listen to on this, I'd say that you need to be really careful but no-one can or ever will force you either way... ultimately it's up to you, but I personally have no time for so-called experts who rely on their own websites and social media to 'publish' their own 'unfunded' or 'independent' "research", which, quite frankly, anyone can do.
 
Last edited:
Some good analysis here:

Hmm, IDK where I'm going with this really, just thinking out loud.

So 50% as likely to catch it, able to spread it for 9/16 of the time, and the R0 value for Delta is about 6, then its new effective R might be about:

6 * 50% * 9/16 = 1.7 (amongst those vaccinated)

Not enough on its own (and I'm not sure that's a correct way to calculate effects on R). But if wearing masks can halve it again, we might win. And/or if enough cases can be recognised quickly and isolated, we might win. With simple, non-draconian measures.

Of course amongst the unvaccinated and those with no immunity from previous infection, it's still 6. I doubt any quick and dirty calc would give the right answer for combining that 6 with the 1.7 dependant on vaccination level and/or previous infection, so I won't try. Suffice to say it wouldn't take much to make it so we have to more than halve the R, which wouldn't be far off where we were in Spring 2020 (original strain's R0 was between 2 and 3) as far as transmission is concerned.

In the UK with vaccination at 88.8% (1 dose) and 73.8% (2 doses) for the adult population, and the other two measures mentioned above somewhat in place, we're currently seeing an effective R of about 1. Cases may be plateauing at about 30,000 per day, pretty high. Hopefully, that last chunk of people getting their second dose will be enough to make R less than 1.

I worry for anywhere (or any group) with lower vaccination levels, when even our high acceptance might not be enough to fully relax.
 
Asking because I genuinely don't know...but would natural selection tend to favor mutations of the virus that are more contagious but simultaneously less lethal? I suppose in the case of Covid, because of it's unusually high contagiousness in the absence of symptoms, it almost doesn't matter if the host dies because in the time it takes from infection to death, there very likely have been a lot of opportunities to find new hosts. Makes me think that the best long term strategy is daily at-home testing, however feasible that could be.

I wonder if anyone is working on any machine-learning based vital sign tests. For instance, I recall that some athletes wearing whoop bands early on in the pandemic had their whoop score drop dramatically just before testing positive for Covid. I believe some of these devices can remotely monitor blood oxygen saturation and other metrics like respiration rate. Maybe some combination of the data able to be extracted from these devices, fed through machine learning, could accurately (to some percentage degree) diagnose a Covid infection in a much more active way. Of course other ailments could probably trigger similar vital sign anomalies, but it could at least be a warning sign. I would be curious to know if these vital sign changes occur after or before a person becomes contagious.
 
Asking because I genuinely don't know...but would natural selection tend to favor mutations of the virus that are more contagious but simultaneously less lethal? I suppose in the case of Covid, because of it's unusually high contagiousness in the absence of symptoms, it almost doesn't matter if the host dies because in the time it takes from infection to death, there very likely have been a lot of opportunities to find new hosts. Makes me think that the best long term strategy is daily at-home testing, however feasible that could be.
I used to believe that was generally the case but then read that it was essentially a myth. No doubt some viruses have evolved in that way, but maybe just as many became more harmful. Certainly, as you say, COVID doesn't seem to have any evolutionary pressure to become less deadly - it started out with contagion as its main forté and then outcompeted itself without altering the harm notably. We seem to simply be lucky that it hasn't become more deadly; that wouldn't harm its spread much. Perhaps it's a more of a pressure for something like Ebola to become weaker, but it's difficult to tell if it has in that case due to reduced prevalence, vaccinations and improved treatment.

I wonder if anyone is working on any machine-learning based vital sign tests. For instance, I recall that some athletes wearing whoop bands early on in the pandemic had their whoop score drop dramatically just before testing positive for Covid. I believe some of these devices can remotely monitor blood oxygen saturation and other metrics like respiration rate. Maybe some combination of the data able to be extracted from these devices, fed through machine learning, could accurately (to some percentage degree) diagnose a Covid infection in a much more active way. Of course other ailments could probably trigger similar vital sign anomalies, but it could at least be a warning sign. I would be curious to know if these vital sign changes occur after or before a person becomes contagious.
That would be pretty cool. I'd guess that respiration rate rises well before you'd notice anything on the blood O2, and maybe you'd go through the whole illness without O2 dropping at all. Heart rate, temperature and respiration rate are the ones I'd pick, although temperature is tricky to monitor continuously and varies quite a bit anyway.
 
In spoiler tags for one gentle f-bomb. Very funny video on how to get republicans vaccinated.


😅

"I am so ****in' hard right now." I was rolling.

And that end is just perfect.
 
Last edited:
You have completely lost sense of reality if you think ebola and delta corona disease are comparable.
Point completely missed your head. You made the notion that you don't know anyone that's tested positive, despite all the "stories and stories". I've never met anyone positive for Ebola despite all the horrible stories about it.

What you did is present anecdotal evidence.
I’m talking about statistics. Raw numbers speaking for different age groups. With that in mind it’s still not surprising if corona disease has been the third largest fatal illness over the past year. Keep in mind that it has swiped across the entire planet during a time where the weak and elderly everywhere had access to no bespoke vaccines at all.
It's literally out there and provided in this thread. Bing it.
Seeking answers to valid and unanswered questions is not the same as seeking misinformation. Not at all.
Lol, it is when you accuse a search engine of purposefully not feeding you what you want to see.

"It’s like their algorithms intentionally filter out results reflecting valid concerns."

Dammit Joe, why is Google filtering out all the 2+2=5 evidence!
I never argued mass vaccination is something new. I argue that people should think for themselves before accepting a completely new vaccine lacking rationale for injecting the entire population.
The only one lacking rationale is you. That much is evident by freshly stating, you decided to think for yourself & research your concerns, but accuse Google of intentionally "hiding" what you're after.

Confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
So how y'all feel after getting both shots, excuse me, "jabs" as y'all like to call them...proving to be a waste of time and money and useless?

Let me grab a beer first so I can enjoy my laugh.
 
They... aren't?
Honestly what are they doing? Last I checked you need a "booster" every 6 months and you can still catch it. Sounds like a familiar thing with 3 letters.

Edit: Sadly I still am @Outspacer
 
Last edited:
Honestly what are they doing? Last I checked you need a "booster" every 6 months and you can still catch it. Sounds like a familiar thing with 3 letters.

Edit: Sadly I still am @Outspacer
It seems you need some basic education on vaccinations and how they work.

Just for sheer irony, the only thing that's likely to make a vaccine "useless" is a sufficiently large population of morons who refuse them.
 
It seems you need some basic education on vaccinations and how they work.

Just for sheer irony, the only thing that's likely to make a vaccine "useless" is a sufficiently large population of morons who refuse them.
Or like the flu vaccine, it doesn't work.
 
Again, it seems you need some basic education on vaccinations and how they work. Are you actually interested in learning or are you just here to advance nonsense?
I'm always willing to read other information.
I still wear a mask/bandana when needed.
I honestly can't agree with y'all.
 
Seriously?
... yes? I don't have any clue what "y'all" has said that you will or won't disagree with.
I'm gonna bow out before I get banned again.
You've never been banned - which is approximately the same number of times you've bowed out of threads. Nice, but easily disprovable, attempt to play the victim once again.

I think we know what the answer to this question actually was:

Are you actually interested in learning or are you just here to advance nonsense?
It's like you have a fetish for ignorance and stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Back