he does it for the money tho. Why do the few contrarians we have here do it?

Some people just wanna watch the world burn because they don't think it'll impact them, and they like to see people stressed over things they don't see as mattering.

I love how lying though is something that they’ll be ok with… other things they’ll evangelize that they’re holier than thou but lying? That’s ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Rogan radicalizes people as much as confirms their biases. Carlson et al.. absolutely radicalize people.

Cancelled my Spotify Premium yesterday. I have other venues to listen to podcast for free and other places to stream music.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I know I keep seeing this nonsense floating around on social media. Every time someone says "get a vaccine" with the dual purpose of preventing hospitalizations (and, thus, better for our medical system as a whole) and to lower tranmissibility, the argument always gets phase shifted thusly. They ignore the first part and run straight at "Omicron is just as transmissible and breakthroughs are just as likely as being unvaccinated" because some of the very early guidance said that might be possible. And then leads to the natural immunity, "there's no point in getting vaccinated", etc. I know I've read studies that disprove that - yes, omicron is more likely to breakthrough than previous strains, but still better than being unvaccinated and also you're not nearly as transmissible as high level transmissibility duration is much sorter. But I can't find those studies this morning. Anyone have a handy link?

SI

I cancelled mine too. I didn't really use it much anyway.

Sounds like Amazon Prime member gets a small music package and you can upgrade for less than Spotify for their full library. Apple and Google have a music service too. I'll probably do a little digging and find one that is cheaper.

I've been using the paid version of Pocket Casts for podcast now for a long time.

Prime music is fantastic. It is VERY rare they don't have an artist I am looking for. Super user friendly and works great with other apps, devices, etc...

Are you using the free Prime one or the Unlimited? Unlimited is only $8/month which seems pretty fair.

lol just saw they have Neil Young and Joni Mitchell on the homepage.

I linked to a couple of those studies a few pages back. Your assessment is correct, I think. "Natural immunity" is real, but getting the shot boosts that.

I also think it's better to answer questions and engage with people rather than assume they're idiots or have ulterior motives.

There are real questions as to whether young people, especially teenage boys, are better off getting vaccinated. Open discussion would be of some value there.

Here's my thinking:

I am overweight (BMI of 28), that's one risk factor, and I am approaching a second risk factor - and by far the biggest - age. I do not want COVID.

Even though the overall numbers are low, the studies suggest I have a much, much greater chance avoiding hospitalization if I'm vaccinated. The percentage of severe side-effects are much lower than that risk.

Therefore, I got the vaccine and the third booster. I assume there will be an annual shot at some point.

There are many breakthrough cases. Omicron is everywhere. Even if everyone gets vaccinated and that obviously helps decrease the spread, it is so contagious and 100% vaccination is simply not going to happen that it is unrealistic to assume I cannot be exposed to COVID. Even Measles made a comeback of sorts when vaccination rates dropped, and that was considered pretty much eradicated in the US for a long time. And Measles doesn't mutate the way COVID does.

Therefore, it's in my best interest, for my own protection, to assume that avoiding COVID exposure is impossible. Especially since the next major mutation may make the vaccines less effective - and there will be more mutations. Since I have no interest in locking myself in a room permanently, the vaccine is the best solution I have. As is not getting angry when others refuse the vaccine. Life is too short.

I think (and it's just an opinion) that at this point, more people will get vaccinated if it's spelled out logically as a self-preservation thing to do. If people continue to claim it should be done out of altruism, then those who don't want the vaccine will point to the side-effects (which certain groups with a very low risk of harm from COVID should probably do anyway).

I also think the more one tries to censor opinions, even incorrect ones, the more people will be exposed to them and uninterested in listening to the sources that endorse that censorship. What we want is popular people with a bad idea (like Rogan) to sit down with medical experts, ask questions, see the numbers and studies for themselves. That way, if they lock into conspiracy as an answer, they're the ones who look bad.

I don't see any censorship taking place. There's plenty of platform people can go to to espouse their beliefs.

Rogan did sit down with a respected neurosurgeon. He brought all the data. Rogan just didn't want to acknowledge it. Not sure what bringing more people on like that would do. He got a $100 million contract because he plays the contrarian and espouses conspiracy theories. There's way too much financial incentive for him to keep his stance.

I don't understand this at all. What would be the reason for teenage boys of remaining unvaxxed?

Thought this was pretty good. Especially the last paragraph. Joe Rogan isn't going to walk his daughter down the aisle. Were those 15 minutes worth abandoning your wife and children? Sadly, for many, it appears so.

Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel | NEJM

To be clear, the question I'd be asking if I were making health decisions for a teenage boy might not be about the first shot - it might be about second shots and boosters. I'd read more.

It also seems that in many countries with higher overall vaccination rates, teenagers are not eligible for boosters unless they have comorbidities.

I can't debate Rogan... I've never listened to his podcast. I don't know how open he is to discussion. Searching today, all I can find easily is that he had an "expert" on last month who said some things that have been debunked. Then something about Gupta on CNN.

As for censorship - yes, that's real, even if it isn't complete. Substack's response to the current controversy, I thought, has been a good one.

I am the father of a teenage boy and it was a very easy decision. Risk of myocarditis is much higher with Covid along with all the other dangers of infection.

Rogan's definitely open to debate, he often has multiple people on with differing views. The people he invites definitely skew to the pro-conspiracy side - on a variety of issues - and a certain number of experts take the IMO counterproductive stance that they won't go on a show like Rogan's, but there are people out there not interested in any view but their own. On balance, Rogan isn't in that camp.


Agreed. Some issues it seems to me he's straddling the line between being friendly enough to the wingers to make them think he's arguably one of theirs, while also doing the respectable 'I'm just asking questions' bit.


Sometimes people, intelligent well-educated people, just plain believe different things than other intelligent well-educated people. There's often not an ulterior motive. There's a lot that gets said around here that I think is flat-out nuts, but I don't think it's because people are doing a performance art wind-up act. I think, by and large, it's because they view the world differently.



All of which leads me to this. I agree with SI's first paragraph, except of course that people who are ignorant are by definition not willfully engaging in bad faith.

First point: the second paragraph puts a lot of the blame in the wrong place IMO. Influencers get nowhere without people who follow them and are influenced.

Second point: The other side of the equals sign also needs to be considered. Repressing - the point that censorship isn't really happening has been well and accurately made - points of view doesn't solve the issue. It just pushes it underground. People are still going to think these things. Criticizing wrong views is absolutely essential and should happen. Going after people for expressing them, having personal animus towards them, is something else entirely. Having contrary views aired regularly is a benefit to a healthy society. Repressing them is the opposite. It creates division, while not really getting rid of the rot. There's definitely some affect on minimizing it, but there's a very large cost paid for that.

We could remove Rogan, Carlson et al tomorrow, or even make them never have existed in the first place in terms of their role in society, and this kind of thing would still happen. Free flow of information is the world we live in, and that genie isn't going back in the box. I don't think it should either, but even if the argument is made that we should try it's practically impossible in the internet age and beyond. We need to get better at combating misinformation via education - and the other part of it, the moral aspect of people caring what's true, is just as important. De-platforming, scrutiny isn't the answer. This is not least because who is to be the scrutinizer? We've already seen people de-platformed for saying things later demonstrated to be actually pretty darn right-on. Oops. What happens when the scrutinizers come for you - whoever 'you' are, whatever issue is important to you. We don't have censorship in which the government decides what opinons are allowed, but we're moving toward a situation where only popular opinions are. But popular opinions are not necessarily true ones, in fact they quite often aren't.

Same here. Yes, there's a statistically very small risk of myocarditis with the vaccine, but there's also a higher risk of myocarditis if the teenage boy gets COVID. Plus potential permanent lung damage. Plus all the various "long COVID" symptoms.

To me this is the seatbelt argument all over again. Yeah, you might get in a crash and the seatbelt might cause some broken ribs, but that's better than the broken ribs you get going through the windshield, because those come with head trauma, other broken limbs, and possibly death.

Who has been censored?

Yeah, I'm not sure what's censorship. Aren't I allowed to decide where I want my work published?

Since the government carved out an exception to libel and copyright laws with section 230, popular platforms gained enormous revenue from advertising placed on that content.

Some platforms have become far more popular than television networks or newspapers. That would not have been possible without this government protection.

They are so popular that it's difficult to convey speech to the public without using one of the major platforms. Not impossible, but difficult.

Section 230 also protects content providers from getting sued for deplatforming decisions.

I'd argue that the extraordinary protection means that any deplatforming decision is a form of government censorship. Not quite the same thing, but close enough.

I don't want to get into the who, because that will lead to some sort debate about whatever the who said. That's not the point. But who decides what's fact and what isn't fact? Feels an awful lot like Orwell's ministries lately.

Just with Twitter-like platforms there's Gab and Gettr and whatever Trump's platform will be called. There are options for people that want to leave a platform.

No it's not. It has never been easier to voice your beliefs. Millions of sites you can post to and countless free options to start a blog or online journal where you can post whatever you want.


A private company deciding to de-platform someone has absolutely nothing to do with Section 230. It's about private property. No different than your decision to kick someone out of your house you don't like or a bar kicking out an unruly customer. This has been constitutionally protected hundreds of years before Section 230 was even enacted.

In fact, Section 230 is the only reason many of these people have platforms in the first place. If Twitter could be sued for the actions of their users, their moderation policy would be much stricter.

Wordpress is free too. I could list a dozen or so other free tools where you don't have to learn HTML. Can be up and running in probably 20 minutes.

The objection to 230 isn't about private property.

It's about a particular business being so protected that it became a utility of sorts. And just like phone companies and electric companies cannot deplatform you because you don't share their political worldview, I think that should be extended.

But if Twitter wants to continue to deplatform people for the content of their speech, then it is a publisher, not a platform, and your arguments would hold, but then it would be liable for what it publishes.

No it's not. Websites and apps are not utilities in any way.

And why is it any of your business what a private business chooses to host and doesn't host? It's their business and they have free speech protections which you seem to want to infringe on.


Publisher and platform do not appear once in the text of Section 230. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion. You should read it and not gain your understanding of it from right-wing sites that also haven't read the text of Section 230 and use the irrelevant publisher/platform argument.

Phone companies can and do remove people and businesses from their service all the time because of the content of their calls.

Oh, the concepts are clear from reading the actual text. A platform is an interactive computer service. Publisher is clearly mentioned.

It seems disingenuous to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of favoring right-wing sites. It's a common and feckless straw-man argument. It's designed to avoid actual discussion.

I thought there might be people here who would discuss this rationally and without the political animus, but it's hard to get past the chorus of hate.

And the standard for that removal?

Violating terms of service. All sorts of spam calls get blocked or labeled.

No they aren't. Being a platform or publisher does not matter according to the actual law. The only thing that matters is whether the content came from a 3rd party. There is decades of case law to back this up.


The only people I've seen make the publisher/platform argument are right-wing sites that are upset racists are being banned. My apologies if you are finding this incorrect information on left-wing or neutral sites, I just haven't seen it. Regardless, we should just base it on the actual text which does not say what you are alluding to.

Now if you're making the argument that we should change Section 230, that could be a good debate. If websites were responsible for 3rd party content, it would dramatically change the internet and cause much stricter moderation (which seems to be the opposite of what you want).

I do think the government forcing private businesses to host content would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Not sure if that is what you're suggesting or if you're looking to nationalize certain websites.

You are correct. I would add that phone companies (landlines) were regulated much more stringently due to being monopolies in most of the country.

There is no monopoly when it comes to web publishing.

Actually, there's a federal law that requires phone companies to adopt call authentication technologies to assist consumers with verifying legitimate calls and blocking spam. The TRACED Act.

I’ve said it before: while I would vote Dem if I was in the US, both sides are equally as polarised as the other, and it’s impossible to have any nuanced argument with either MAGA or the entrenched liberals.

It’s the same here too, not just an American thing - debate is largely dead, if you veer from the party line you’re a heretic

Edit to add: often this applies if you ask a question - you’re usually berated rather than educated

That's exactly the argument I'm making. Either it's a utility and you're responsible for how you use it (like a phone) or it's a publisher and they're responsible for what they publish. One or the other. Section 230 simply provides protection for both. I think supporters simply assumed the platforms would remain relatively Libertarian in perspective. Obviously, the law addresses other types of internet-related businesses.

As for the straw-manning, whatever. It's a shame there are so many right-wing and left-wing "news" sites out there. I try and read a wide range. But this was the most recent site I read regarding the law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. It's all there. I don't think the people who wrote the law anticipated that Silicon Valley would get so involved in politics.

Yeah. I keep hoping... but I keep getting disappointed. I don't know how to vote in this polarized world. I don't like the direction of the left the last decade or so, but I really don't like Trump.

And when I was young, it was the right wing that stood for censorship and loads of unpleasantness. I leaned left for a long time. If Trump runs again, I give up on politics. He is never going to listen to nuanced anything.

I understand the argument you are making. I am just pointing out that it is not what the law says or how it has been interpreted by the courts (or the people who wrote the bill).

If you think websites should be public utilities, so be it. It would not just dramatically alter the makeup of the internet (imagine the spam), but require some changes to laws and constitutional amendments.

If you're wondering where Stockton got his information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ccines-spread/

It's "vaccines cause autism" all over again.

Post-Covid, there are things I didn't think twice about before that I see in a whole new light now. Like going through a drive thru and watching the worker put a fist full of ketchup packets into the bag with her bare hands and seeing them sitting on top of my fries. That's definitely one of them.

Not sure where to put this but it seems appropriate. I got contacted today to see if I would be open to be interviewed by a reporter from the WSJ for an article regarding being a stay at home dad during the pandemic.

And are you open ?:)

Sure. Why not!

Uh, might want to coordinate your stories with the missus here. Don't want to surprise her.

And oh, no drinking or during the interview.

EXTRA drinking during the interview.

A poorly-hidden bottle of whiskey on the edge of the camera's view would be ideal, I think. Might as well be authentic to the parent-in-a-pandemic experience.

It was for a print article, and I just did it. Was pretty cool. Focused on liberal leaning people who are basically ready to move on from the pandemic. Lots of discussion about schools, conflicting information, disorganization around communication, etc...

Interesting article on why some people don't catch covid. I seem to catch the common cold every year pre-covid so this may apply to me? For the past 2 years, I've not had to pop any Tylenol Cold & Flu and don't remember having any serious bouts of cold or flu (other than for sniffles and some mild coughing).

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/why-...hers-dont.html
He said that early data suggests these individuals have naturally acquired immunity from previous infections with common cold coronaviruses. Around 20% of common cold infections are due to common cold coronaviruses, he said, “but why some individuals maintain levels of cross-reactive immunity remains unknown.”

Do we really know if we've had Covid or not? How is that determined? I've wondered this myself. Both my girls got Covid in November of 2020 and one lived with us through it and neither my wife nor I got it - we think. I've been exposed many times to people I know ended up positive and never got symptoms. I've had about 5 or 6 tests and all have come back negative, but that doesn't mean I haven't had Covid at some point.

Isn't it possible we got it, but had no symptoms? Other than PCR or rapid tests, neither of us have had any other kind of test that would show whether we may have had it in the past. I'm not sure I can claim I've never had Covid with any kind of certainty. I just know I haven't had any symptoms or tested positive.

Antibody test would tell you but they're something that's common. Texas is running a study that would give you 3 free antibody tests but you had to sign up for it early in the pandemic (we missed out).

SI

Before COVID, I thought I knew how the immune system worked based on what I learned in 6th grade. You get exposed; you get antibodies; then you are immune going forward.

Turns out, that model is so simplistic that it is basically like knowing nothing.

Which makes me wonder how many other things there are out there that I think that I understand but that I actually have no idea about.

Maybe I'm confusing waning immunity with antibodies, but do antibodies last forever? If I had Covid in March of 2020 and took an antibody test today, 2 years later, I'd know whether I had it at any point in the past?

About a month since the stats I posted above from CDC. So looking like +1.5% per month right now for >12. So about 5 more months before we hit 80% if it keeps up.

(The >5 was just approved in Nov so that drags down the average. The <5 not yet approved).

> 12 is at 72.6 up from 71.1%.

At least one dose ...

> 12 is at 85.2 up from 83.5%.

Great until you start saying that anyone who hasn't been vaxxed in the past 6 months, either from the primary, two shot regimen, or from a booster, is no longer considered vaccinated. It's the growing definition in Europe. Given that the initial push of vaccines was early on, it's been almost a 11 months since my initial shot, you'll see the overall percentages drop. But the good news, imo, is that it's moving toward an overall solution with Omicron being so infectious and less deadly. The initial push of Omicron related deaths happen, eventually humans will adapt and it'll be more like a cold or flu, that can still be serious, but will largely be accepted as another thing we deal with regularly.

I imagine in a few years--at least in the developed world--they will just roll the flu and COVID booster together and it will just be one shot you get every Fall.

Has the CDC not Said that it is likely that the big difference between 1 and 2 Dose recipients (and no other country has one even remotely as big afaik) is at least partly due to 3rd doses registered as First doses ? Also "we know who they are" sounds way too confident. Who exactly would have that data considering you could get vaccinated at so many different Locations run by different entities ?

Anyway, as to Pilotmans point, John-Burn Murdoch from the FT (whose coverage has been great overall) has a stellar graphical illustration of this and why the US lags much further behind than the raw vaccination numbers indicate. And even those look worse If looking at the correct denominator: 80% vs 90% (as an example) isn't "only 10% less" but "twice as many unvaccinated" .

Here’s vax uptake and waning among the elderly in the US and several European countries.

Note how that red "unvaxxed elderly" segment extends much further right for the US, with millions still vulnerable well into its summer Delta wave.

Far more severely waned second doses, too pic.twitter.com/nIjM4rwWl2

— John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) January 31, 2022

(Whole thread is well worth a look)

Booster protection looks to hold up considereably better (adjusted for variant etc) against serious cases. There has also been many studies showing much broader antibody and Cell Response Leasing many immunologists to consider IT ab3 dose vaccine (as are plenty of Others). Just one of those Things that could only be figured out as time passend.

Also, "less deadly" will still result in many more dead this Winter/spring than any flu season despite a much better vaccine protection and coverage. I don't think it is a stretch to say that best case scenario for the next few years at least will still result in a big uptick in people dying from any 'respiratory' disease one behaviours fully revert towards prepandemic times and flu et al make a real comeback. Not saying there's much alternative on a societal level, but i also think people (especially those in positions to, for instance, allocate Funds and drive messaging) need to consider this.

I’m having to get a third dose as a first dose on Friday as my previous clinical trials aren’t recognized by the state, and the doctor is recommending I don’t get a 4th until 6 months after, so I’m going to be part of those lapsed second dose statistics soon.

Frustrating as obviously I won’t get a completed vaccine card until late summer at best, but most things seem to be moving away from requiring them anyway.

Some antibodies (there's a lot of different ones in reaction to different areas of the virus and/or vaccine) do indeed last a long time with some even increasing (thus getting easier to detect). The german institute tasked with doing quality controll on these tests just released a study showing certain tests targetting certain combinations of antibodies and Antigen Target having a near 100% detection rate up to 430 days out (cut off point for data).

However most of the common tests are 'tuned in' to Antibodies that 1) don't hold up as Well + aren't produced always (depends in how bad the illness was to some degree) and 2) are also produced in reaction to the vaccine. I don't think you can get an answer to that via an over the counter test If you were vaccinated as well. A test (or rather a Sample Testes a dozen different ways) run in a lab by professionals would be a different story, but that's not exactly practical on a large scale.

I survived 5 days at Disney theme parks in Orlando with my girlfriend's family and am still testing negative more than a week out now. There was some talk of postponing the trip but honestly, I just find it hard to care one way or another anymore. I've had so many exposures. Still no symptoms or positive tests. I haven't taken any precautions besides masks since probably early last summer. And I'm really glad I haven't intentionally passed up any life experiences by my own choice, though I've missed out on plenty through the choices of others, which I completely understand.

On the one hand I kind of feel immune now, on the other it wouldn't surprise me if I picked it up somewhere stupid now.

But hooray for vaccines.

I hate having covid :(
It's been several weeks now and I'm still not well :(

Yeah, it fucking sucks.

3 weeks of the actual "sickness" for me but the recovery is glacial

Yeesh, sorry dudes. It kicked my butt, but I only had it for a matter of days, weeks would be hellish.

97 times more likely to die.

In the first week of December, individuals who were unvaccinated 97(!) times more likely to die compared to those who were vaccinated and boosted, according to data from 28 jurisdictions presented today by @CDCDirector.

Getting boosted could save your life. pic.twitter.com/cawaRCxAac

— Benjy Renton (@bhrenton) February 2, 2022

I have started going back to work. working like 4 hours and at the end of it i'm exhausted. Still have a little wheezy feeling and my sinuses still have little stuffiness and drainage.

If you don't mind sharing, what were your symptoms at the "peak" and what are the lingering symptoms you're having now?

SI

I damn near died? lol. That's how I'd describe my symptoms.

In more realistic terms, I ran the gamut.

I had 2+ weeks of coughing, total lethargy, the worst might have been the days of being unable to keep anything (even water) down. The fuzzy brain, I could literally go on and on. If it was a symptom associated with Covid, I probably had it with the exception of loss of taste & smell. That zero tolerance for food or hardly any liquid at all lasted 5-6 days (again, it's kinda fuzzy, Will was mostly taking care of me at that point)

If I had to bet, I'd bet I had "flurona" which gave me the fun experiences of both 'rona AND a pretty hardcore case of the flu.

Lingering? That's kinda mixed in the last 24 hours.

I'd mark my "coming out of it" as starting about a week ago. I started being able to keep down fluids consistently, the overnight hours of dry heaving stopped, I wasn't chilling, I wasn't constantly nauseous, etc etc. That seems like a good benchmark for "start recovery". So that was Thursday, by Saturday I ate 10 ounces of Progresso chicken noodle soup which was my largest meal (or daily total in fact) in fifteen days. That'd be another milestone.

But I still can't eat/drink several things -- not taste related mostly, just ... texture. Things that are staples for me that still get larger with every chew.
I've gone from 3 pots of coffee a day to I haven't made 3 pots in the past week (it doesn't taste right AND does not sit well on my stomach at all). I've picked up the stereotypical "lingering dry light cough" over the past 72 hours. And for most of the past 24 hours I've been dizzy to the point of queasiness way too often. Yesterday was very demanding -- physically and emotionally -- with things related to my wife and her medical situation and I'm sure I'm today paying some of the price of "don't try to do too much too soon after Covid". That price I'd describe as "regressing", not quite "relapsing" thankfully.

I'll put it like this

48 hours ago, if I absolutely had to, I could have driven 70 miles to her hospital. I'd have paid a price but I could have done it somehow. Today? Someone would have had to drive me, I'd put the chance of doing it myself at 0.0.

I FUCKING COULDN"T EAT KETCHUP OR TABASCO!!!! IT WAS THE WORST!!!!

Well, that is what the science says, but what does Joe Rogan say?

My boss and his wife got it. What's weird about how they were treated is that she was first diagnosed with pneumonia but tested negative, so she got antibiotics and other medicine and her symptoms were over about 4-5 days after diagnosis. Two days after her pneumonia diagnosis, my boss tested positive and then his wife tested again and was positive. He got nothing other than a pat on the back and told to quarantine. About a week later, he was still feeling bad and went back to the doctor and tested positive again but mentioned that he thought a sinus infection had developed so they gave him antibiotics and some other stuff, and all of it was gone in about 3 days.

Get Covid, get no drugs. Get Covid with something else, get drugs and recover much quicker.

He says he's still tired all the time, goes to sleep much earlier and wants to sleep much later than he's ever done.

My son -- not boosted -- lost his sense of taste a bit ago (got it back). Doesn't report much else, says he's gotten better.

On the same call he also complained of a lack of energy/motivation. Chalked it up to Senioritis. Probably the case, but it makes me wonder...

I think we all have that. It's called "living in 2020/2021/2022".

At the risk of sounding controversial, I'll say that three positive tests in my household over a two week span and what you mention very much matches.

3 cases, the only medication given to any of us (1 with direct doctor contact, 1 with remote doctor contact, and 1 "what's the fucking point in doctor contact?") was "here's a pill for the cough that's we're sure will linger"

Otherwise, a positive test that doesn't come with hospitalization largely seems to be "go fuck yourself, good luck"

Yeah, that could be it too, though on campus things are opening up some. Plus he's now over 21 which brings its own benefits.

Honestly (and this probably belongs in another thread) I think it's also a combination of a) band is over, and b) worrying about eventual job prospects. While he has another year in a combined BS/MS, he has encountered classmates who ONLY LIVE AERO. Like, 10AM on a weekend they want to Zoom to talk about their project. The types he thinks will gladly work 16hrs/day for SpaceX, etc. because they simply have nothing else they want to do.

At any rate it's a little out-of-character for how he's performed academically until now. But yeah, could just be hitting some burnout.

I'm not sure the protocol with prescribing the anti-virals, but if it is just COVID with no other infection antibiotics won't help.

Screw "curing the covid" .. helping people manage the symptoms would be nice.

Not every situation has symptoms that need help managing, those that do seem s.o.l. unless they're lucky enough to be dealing with a doctor that actually gives a fuck about how their patient feels/functions.

(I know other areas where it's almost "what drug(s) do you want" while others it's "have fun, go fuck yourself")

Yeah I get that, and in the case of my boss and his wife, they both apparently had infections to go along with Covid where antibiotics helped. But aside from antibiotics, how about other things that could help with symptoms. You get nothing other than a couple OTC suggestions. In the past, for allergies, I've gotten things to help with cough or sinus that were stronger than I can buy off the shelf. Why isn't that part of trying to help people get better, quicker with Covid?

Given you mentioned one vice (coffee), I can't help but wonder...cigs? (Unless I missed coverage of them elsewhere.)

When I was a regular smoker getting seriously ill was definitely a whole 'nother layer of hell.

That's a good point. I do recall one time that I had a viral infection with a bad cough and they also gave me a cough suppressant prescription that I agree should be part of the treatment plan.

Oh hell, 1000% valid question.

My norm is approx 3 packs/day.

I smoked less than three packs total during the 10 day worst of it. And at least half of that was after a dry heaving event, usually just partially smoked.

There's a shared collective trauma that we're all living through (in different ways) that has manifest itself in may ways already and will be in case studies for decades or longer.

SI

Almost all. This whole deal has really hammered home how out-of-phase my existence is. I am legit like "sigh...shit." whenever I have to leave the house. I have no in-person friends to have to miss, no family that I've sacrificed seeing save my mom, who I only saw yearly at the most anyhow. Yeah, we don't go out to eat like we would. But the kids aren't around/interested in doing that anyhow, so...yeah. I'm cool with semi-weekly excursions to the Goodwill/library/used bookstore. And the occasional trip out to Purdue. (Which...I. mean, we went to football and volleyball games out there, so, normal?)

edit: and I am perfectly content with this

Is the perma cigarette smell a sign of covid? Cause I had that shit for a week or two. Like I'd spent a night in a dive bar in the 80s amount of cigarette smell.

I had forgotten. Fully approved now. I guess that's good, a formality but kinda meaningless all things considered.

Remember when that was the fake reason people weren't getting their vaccine for months? Good times, eh?

SI

Three pots of coffee a day? :O I mean, I drink a lot of coffee, but....

I felt a tremor in the force.

That'd be my pretty long-standing average. It'll vary from 2.5 to 3.5 depending on the amount of sleep I end up doing in a day but it's pretty consistent for an average.

I drink on avg 2 pots per weekday. First is half caffeine and second is decaf (Costco brand). 3 cups per pot so 6 cups a day.

I've mentioned (admitted?) this before but for those who might not recall:

Some years back, because of my consumption level, I switched to half-caf pretty much full time. That was probably around age 40 or so.

Did it ding my manhood a little to give in to that change? Yeah, some.
But there's a lot of things that come with age/aging that you just have to learn to accept.

Nah, no manhood issues on decaf. But some manhood issues after watching Yellowstone and not drinking my coffee black (but with sugar and coffee mate).

So its been 2 years since this thread started.

Year 1 was obviously pretty bad. Year 2, although not great, has been much better relatively speaking.

No idea how the 1918 influenza epidemic impacted people's daily lives (suspect much worse than we had it) but good thing we have TV and internet for entertainment in these times.

I mentioned earlier that there are rumors that Rogan is actually vaccinated and doesn't believe the bullshit he's peddling and pushing on his show. This clip is from 2020 and in it he's praising vaccines while mocking anti-vaxers. He's 100% behind the science and consistently was until there was money to be made off of the idiots.

This is my lack of surprise face.

Random practical Covid thought:

With all the stuff that tastes "wrong" in my aftermath, I wonder if the few things that have tasted "better" than normal will stay elevated? Or if all of it eventually just goes back to it's usual station?

Walmart Sour Cream & Cheddar knockoff Ruffles have been AMAZING for most of the past week, I've had a few with probably half my meals. Their regular flavor knockoff has been a close second.

Are you sure you didn’t take a pregnancy test by mistake?

That was actually the joke I made on my social media when I posted the positive ("Well, at least I ain't pregnant")

My lack of surprise face goes to the presenter in that clip not even addressing the difference between COVID vaccines and other vaccines.

Sour cream and cheddar chips are like crack to me. The only chip that I don't mind the "baked" kind.

It says the clip was from March 2020.

Edit: I get now that you're talking about the Rational National guy. I'm not sure why it matters, though. Rogan is just a charismatic (to some people) dumbass, he's in no way qualified to evaluate MRNA vaccines vs. Johnson and Johnson vs the measles vaccine.