COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[JPhillips]

John Stockton has gone mad.

dude is out of his damn mind https://t.co/dMqiaCbAUX pic.twitter.com/zZq7tU05rq

— Brian Floyd (@BrianMFloyd) January 23, 2022

[whomario]

Not a surprise, he was apearing in a high profile Antivaxx documentary last Winter, boasting of having done "significant amounts of research" (and being irritated that his children don't believe his ramblings over official guidance)

-----------


Joe Rogan's Friends Assemble in D.C. to Do Something They Say Isn't an Anti-Vax Rally

Usefull as a field guide to (mostly) american Antivaxxers. Plus, a Kwame Brown sighting.

I hope they at least sleep badly at night.

[Brian Swartz]

These people haven't, in general, changed. What's changed is that we care what they think about these issues now.

[CrimsonFox]

I can't eat ketchup or hot sauce right now and the world is a darker place.

[Atocep]

Aaron Rodgers stopped trying to walk a fine line and came out as fully anti-vax and at least borderline Q.

“When the president of the United States says, ‘This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,’ it’s because him and his constituents, which — I don’t know how there are any if you watch any of his attempts at public speaking — but I guess he got 81 million votes,” the NFL star told ESPN before his season ended in a playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers on Saturday.

“But when you say stuff like that, and then you have the CDC, which — how do you even trust them — but then they come out and talk about 75% of the COVID deaths have at least four comorbidities,” he continued. “And you still have this fake White House set saying that this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated. That’s not helping the conversation.”

[Atocep]

lol

power ranking the top 10 aaron rodgers nicknames

1. klan marino
2. rush lambeau
3 throw rogan
4. prager unitas
5. Brietbart Starr
6. QB giuliani
7. OANy romo
8. tuckrule carlson
9. Qaaron rodgers
10. kurt d wormer

— Ben Pfeifer (@bjpf_) January 23, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

Winning is the only thing. So I expect the Packers will make nice and keep him around.

But there has to be a growing "Even another Super Bowl isn't worth spending another second with that asshole" sentiment in that building.

[Solecismic]

Am I missing something entirely? Is Rodgers a QAnon guy? I thought his outbursts were limited to the concept of forced vaccination. And since many pro athletes are very, very involved in knowing exactly what they put into their bodies, his concerns seemed honest to me. He seems convinced that he could have a bad reaction.

But if he's running around like the guy with the Bravehart getup, then I withdraw my concern that he's getting a bad rap here. Though calling someone a Klan member (the Pfeifer guy, whoever he is) seems like an entirely different breed of awful if there's no real justification.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Am I missing something entirely? Is Rodgers a QAnon guy? I thought his outbursts were limited to the concept of forced vaccination. And since many pro athletes are very, very involved in knowing exactly what they put into their bodies, his concerns seemed honest to me. He seems convinced that he could have a bad reaction.

But if he's running around like the guy with the Bravehart getup, then I withdraw my concern that he's getting a bad rap here. Though calling someone a Klan member (the Pfeifer guy, whoever he is) seems like an entirely different breed of awful if there's no real justification.

He takes that horse paste so I don't really think this is about concerns over what is going into his body.

[RainMaker]

His girlfriend also advocates eating clay because a cab driver told her it works.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But if he's running around like the guy with the Bravehart getup, then I withdraw my concern that he's getting a bad rap here. Though calling someone a Klan member (the Pfeifer guy, whoever he is) seems like an entirely different breed of awful if there's no real justification.

It's the usual pile-on. I haven't seen any quotes from Rodgers putting him in the Q camp.

There's a difficulty in certain circles - or a lack of interest in doing it possibly - in differentiating between degrees of opposition to the approved line. Often one is either in agreement with the vaccine mandates and all that entails, or they are considered to be 'pro-virus' 'Q-positive', and so on.

[Solecismic]

I think it's important to note that the veterinary pastes are a different form of the ivermectin that can be proscribed to humans.

It's also important to note that while ivermectin is considered a "wonder drug" in places where there are a lot of parasitic infections, it isn't considered a valid way to avoid COVID. However, the tablets proscribed to humans are very safe.

Calling something that has saved millions of human lives "horse paste" doesn't help advance the discussion any more than calling someone a Klan member who has never advocated Klan behavior.

I hadn't heard about the eating clay thing, but I looked it up, and it's not like she's digging around in the garden for it. It seems to fall into the general class of strange supplement stuff that probably doesn't hurt you. And 22-year-old actresses generally tend to be into strange stuff (older ones, too, thinking of Gwyneth Paltrow making a career out of it).

I'm not trying to defend Rodgers, especially over the anti-vaccination stuff. I'm just not cool with this trend of connecting people we don't agree with on one subject to all sorts of other evil.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Am I missing something entirely? Is Rodgers a QAnon guy? I thought his outbursts were limited to the concept of forced vaccination. And since many pro athletes are very, very involved in knowing exactly what they put into their bodies, his concerns seemed honest to me. He seems convinced that he could have a bad reaction.

But if he's running around like the guy with the Bravehart getup, then I withdraw my concern that he's getting a bad rap here. Though calling someone a Klan member (the Pfeifer guy, whoever he is) seems like an entirely different breed of awful if there's no real justification.

Usually those that question the election results and fall into the anti-vax CDC conspiracy group are Q followers or at least Q-adjacent. Which is why I said borderline Q.

He held back his true feelings on vaccinations and tried to spin himself not as antivax but his recent statement showed there was more there. I wouldn't be surprised at all that there's more to his thoughts on the election than simply questioning 81 million votes as well.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the 81 million line hints that he's a big lie guy at a minimum.

[Flasch186]

There’s also a group that are fully Q but know that that will make them judged if they truly let their true feelings out so they couch their statements to be able to disassociate when questioned. You can see that many will cut those a break or benefit of the doubt if they don’t explicitly espouse a doctrine exactly as promoted online or on oan.

Watch the movie US

It’s exactly this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thesloppy]

Oregon Wages Rose 17% Since the Pandemic Started—and a State Economist Says They’ll Keep Rising

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Am I missing something entirely? Is Rodgers a QAnon guy? I thought his outbursts were limited to the concept of forced vaccination. And since many pro athletes are very, very involved in knowing exactly what they put into their bodies, his concerns seemed honest to me. He seems convinced that he could have a bad reaction.

“When the president of the United States says, ‘This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,’ it’s because him and his constituents"

How do you interpret that as "limited to the concept of forced vaccination"? I mean it's so poorly stated that it could be interpreted many ways, but none of them are rooted in a concern for his personal health.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

However, the tablets proscribed to humans are very safe.

So is the vaccine that has been administered to billions.

Your argument here is that he's concerned about what he puts in his body. The same guy who is taking Ivermectin and Hydrochlorique. Two drugs with side effects that have zero scientific evidence they help in combating COVID. Doesn't sound like someone who is concerned about what he puts into his body.

The horse paste joke is because few reputable doctors will prescribe the drug for COVID. So the anti-vaxx crowd resorted to buying the horse version. Rodgers probably has enough money to get it legitimately, but who knows?

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I hadn't heard about the eating clay thing, but I looked it up, and it's not like she's digging around in the garden for it. It seems to fall into the general class of strange supplement stuff that probably doesn't hurt you. And 22-year-old actresses generally tend to be into strange stuff (older ones, too, thinking of Gwyneth Paltrow making a career out of it).

If someone literally wants to eat dirt, go for it. But you don't get to argue that they are careful with what they put into their body.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not trying to defend Rodgers, especially over the anti-vaccination stuff. I'm just not cool with this trend of connecting people we don't agree with on one subject to all sorts of other evil.

Of course you are. You came up with a ridiculous excuse as to why he wouldn't take it. An excuse he doesn't need because he's been very clear as to what he feels works (random drugs touted by Joe Rogan and vitamins) and what doesn't (the vaccine).

[Solecismic]

After reading some more, especially what Rodgers has been quoted as saying, I disagree with you (including the dirt/clay confusion, not that what his new girlfriend said she did seven years ago is relevant here, nor am I interested in a discussion about the claimed health benefits of this type of clay).

Given the millions whose lives have been saved by Ivermectin, I'm not certain I understand why it's a joking matter. I didn't think when you posted that you were intending it as a joke. It's very important for those who are trying to obtain Ivermectin that they understand the difference between the veterinary form and the pills approved for human use.

While it's not approved for COVID use in the US, that is still being studied (the small 2020 study from Bangladesh is still referenced on the NCBI site) and Rodgers did take it when sick with COVID and while symptomatic. He said the symptoms reduced. So I can understand why he feels it worked for him, even though the evidence is weak at this point.

Some of the stuff Rodgers is spreading about the vaccines (the infertility argument), I would call him out on, since that's not based on anything other than speculation. The vaccines have saved a lot of lives. I think he's being sincere, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

.

For some people it's literally black or white, no grey. So I wouldn't bother.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Given the millions whose lives have been saved by Ivermectin, I'm not certain I understand why it's a joking matter. I didn't think when you posted that you were intending it as a joke. It's very important for those who are trying to obtain Ivermectin that they understand the difference between the veterinary form and the pills approved for human use.

I'm sure Ivermectin has saved lives and if this thread was about roundworm, it would be highly relevant. But if someone is at a point where they are going to feed stores to buy the stuff with a horse on the wrapper, they're probably too far gone to listen to any rational medical advice.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

While it's not approved for COVID use in the US, that is still being studied (the small 2020 study from Bangladesh is still referenced on the NCBI site) and Rodgers did take it when sick with COVID and while symptomatic. He said the symptoms reduced. So I can understand why he feels it worked for him, even though the evidence is weak at this point.

I'm sure he did take it when he had COVID and I'm sure he did recover. I drank Diet Mountain Dew and played video games when I had the flu a couple years ago and recovered. Correlation does not imply causation.

I guarantee you that if there was any evidence that Ivermectic worked to cure or prevent COVID, the giant pharmaceutical company that makes it would have let us all know by now. Instead, they are begging people to not take it.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Some of the stuff Rodgers is spreading about the vaccines (the infertility argument), I would call him out on, since that's not based on anything other than speculation. The vaccines have saved a lot of lives. I think he's being sincere, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says.

What he is spreading is misinformation. Acting like some Vitamin C and Zinc pills immunizes you from COVID. What he has said is factually incorrect and has no scientific evidence to back it up. Not to mention dangerous to the populace and increases the spread of a deadly virus.

But I do agree that he is sincere in what he believes.

[Atocep]

Ivermectin caught on because one study showed in a lab setting that a higher than approved use dosage of Ivermectin kills the Covid 19 virus. I'm sure there are countless other things we could find that kills Covid in a lab setting as well, but there's no evidence it works within the human body with the same effectiveness when given an approved dosage.

These people don't trust science unless it aligns with their agenda or preconceived beliefs. In this case they believe there's a global conspiracy to keep Covid drugs away from the public to push the dangerous vaccines onto us.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For some people it's literally black or white, no grey. So I wouldn't bother.

The numbers are black and white. You can look up data points as to the effectiveness of the vaccine. You can read actual scientific studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin, HCQ, Vitamin C, and others he touted to compare it to the vaccine.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The numbers are black and white. You can look up data points as to the effectiveness of the vaccine. You can read actual scientific studies on the effectiveness of Ivermectin, HCQ, Vitamin C, and others he touted to compare it to the vaccine.

THE VITAMIN C AND D HAVE TO BE TAKEN WITH ZINC!!!

I'm so tired of this shit.

[Edward64]

re: 400M N95 masks for free.

Trying to understand the rationale for this. About 250M or so adults. So we are talking about 2 masks each. I guess this is just for the omicron spike (which will probably be on a downhill when the masks get to us).

Don't know how much it costs to take it out of the stockpile, but the $ may be better spent by somehow making more N95 masks readily available at lower costs. Work with a company that has direct manufacturing capacity and churn those out.

I think 40-60% of the US will be living with and using masks for the near-mid future ... and there'll probably be another mutation later this year.

[Atocep]

I got a box of N95s from work when the pandemic started. I've had to wear one a couple of times on the Covid floors of our hospital and they're currently sitting in my vehicle glove box in case someone forgets a mask. They are not fun to wear at all. I'd definitely suck it up if I were at risk, but for now I'm just relying on double layer cloth masks and my vaccines+booster.

[RainMaker]

I had a box from before this started for woodworking. They really are miserable to wear and I don't know how doctors and nurses pull it off for 8+ hour shifts. 20 minutes in a grocery store was enough for me.

After I got vaccinated I just went down to a bandana but I usually keep good distance from people in public and have avoided crowded areas.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: 400M N95 masks for free.

Trying to understand the rationale for this.

Appearing to do everything possible.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Given the millions whose lives have been saved by Ivermectin, I'm not certain I understand why it's a joking matter. I didn't think when you posted that you were intending it as a joke. It's very important for those who are trying to obtain Ivermectin that they understand the difference between the veterinary form and the pills approved for human use.

While it's not approved for COVID use in the US, that is still being studied (the small 2020 study from Bangladesh is still referenced on the NCBI site) and Rodgers did take it when sick with COVID and while symptomatic. He said the symptoms reduced. So I can understand why he feels it worked for him, even though the evidence is weak at this point.

Millions of lives have been saved by Ivermectin for parasitic diseases. That seems an odd thing to bring up in the COVID thread. I think that when Aaron Rodgers and all of us are talking about Ivermectin in the COVID thread, we're talking about his stance on taking it for COVID, right?

And, yes, the science for the COVID pandemic isn't going to be fully settled for years. But Ivermectin (and Hydroxychloroquine and a number of other drugs) do not appear to have statistically significant effects on COVID in the vast majority of studies. Of course, most professional athletes who are in great physical shape, are going to have limited difficulties with a disease that significantly affects those with comorbidities worst so, anecdotally, most athletes will be fine.*

*Though, if you traffic in public health, you're going to want to make policies based on overall populations not just small pockets or small unique samples.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For some people it's literally black or white, no grey. So I wouldn't bother.

I, for one, am glad I'm able to always bask in the aura of one of my social and moral betters who is always ready to remind us that said wisdom is only surpassed by a greater humility.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I, for one, am glad I'm able to always bask in the aura of one of my social and moral betters who is always ready to remind us that said wisdom is only surpassed by a greater humility.

SI

Funny you should say that. Definitely no shortage of moral betters in FOFC. Oblivious hypocrisy.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For some people it's literally black or white, no grey. So I wouldn't bother.

Yeah. I know. The one point that Rodgers makes that resonates (and there's some irony there) is that healthy, unemotional debate can advance knowledge. So one would hope that with intelligent people (and I think Rodgers is intelligent), engaging them from the perspective that they are trying to help and can add to the debate will allow us to better establish what needs further study and what is just misinformation.

I've come to the conclusion, and this is recent with me, maybe only the last few years, that the overwhelming majority of people feel very strongly that they would like to make the world a better place. What we call moral values as human beings - we have more in common than not. Life is not a superhero movie. Or a television "news" show.

However... we have as many different ways of expressing those values as there are individuals. And those expressions are more a function of the intersection of thousands of variables that we don't like to change or want to change or maybe cannot change.

It helps me to recognize that no matter how hard I try, there's no way (unless I'm not around to assess it) that many of the thoughts I feel strongly about today I might feel very differently about ten years from now. Or that "history", whatever that is, won't judge 2022 as harshly in 2042 as we judge 2002 today.

So the Ivermectin thing - it's an incredibly valuable drug, maybe one of the most valuable drugs ever developed, but it is not a substitute for the vaccines. Reviewing some of the newer studies on the NCBI site, it's still being investigated as a potential treatment, though I haven't seen anything on prevention (and I'd rather just not get COVID, period). Given the number and recency of these studies, I think the medical community still thinks it's worth considering as treatment in some cases because it has so few side-effects. So the studies continue.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So the Ivermectin thing - it's an incredibly valuable drug, maybe one of the most valuable drugs ever developed, but it is not a substitute for the vaccines. Reviewing some of the newer studies on the NCBI site, it's still being investigated as a potential treatment, though I haven't seen anything on prevention (and I'd rather just not get COVID, period). Given the number and recency of these studies, I think the medical community still thinks it's worth considering as treatment in some cases because it has so few side-effects. So the studies continue.

I've read there is a robust Duke study going on the human version of Ivermectin (not the horse version).

I do think there are covidiots taking the horse version (and bleach and etc.). But don't think Rodgers was talking about that. Horse version definitely no-no.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yeah. I know. The one point that Rodgers makes that resonates (and there's some irony there) is that healthy, unemotional debate can advance knowledge. So one would hope that with intelligent people (and I think Rodgers is intelligent), engaging them from the perspective that they are trying to help and can add to the debate will allow us to better establish what needs further study and what is just misinformation.

If they were trying to help, wouldn't they tell people to choose the path that has mountains of scientific evidence backing it?

Also, how can you have a scientific debate with someone who doesn't believe in scientific evidence? Their beliefs are based on a completely different criteria.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've read there is a robust Duke study going on the human version of Ivermectin (not the horse version).

I do think there are covidiots taking the horse version (and bleach and etc.). But don't think Rodgers was talking about that. Horse version definitely no-no.

Cattle version of Ivermectin is the way to go. It’s a pour-on. Dump some in your hair and don’t shower for a few days so you know it worked. Given how concentrated it is, you won’t need much. I used to buy it by the gallon!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If they were trying to help, wouldn't they tell people to choose the path that has mountains of scientific evidence backing it?

Also, how can you have a scientific debate with someone who doesn't believe in scientific evidence? Their beliefs are based on a completely different criteria.

Belief is a terribly tricky concept. We tend to confirm as "scientific" what we want to believe.

It seems to me that Rodgers would sincerely say the same thing about his loyal opposition.

Our goal can and should be to be non-political about this sort of thing. None of us meets that standard. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

how can you have a scientific debate with someone who doesn't believe in scientific evidence? Their beliefs are based on a completely different criteria.

People just think differently. There are people who believe in scientific evidence and have been convinced by it to become flat earthers, for crying out loud. This is why it's important to engage with people of all views. As much for our benefits as theirs. As repulsive as it may seem to us at times, we can learn a lot from the Aaron Rodgers of the world.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

John Stockton has gone mad.

.....

Ok, so who are the 100+ professional athletes that have died during a game/competition or practice over the last 2 years? Can he name any? I can't remember any for this rumor to even start. Maybe during sports I don't follow as closely?

There have been pro athletes to pass away, but not during action and many that died from COVID had finished their careers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Belief is a terribly tricky concept. We tend to confirm as "scientific" what we want to believe.

It seems to me that Rodgers would sincerely say the same thing about his loyal opposition.

Our goal can and should be to be non-political about this sort of thing. None of us meets that standard. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This is just vague gibberish people use when they don't have the courage to say what they believe.

You either believe the billions of data points we have from countries, medical facilities, doctors, researchers, scientists, and organizations mean something, or you don't.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

People just think differently. There are people who believe in scientific evidence and have been convinced by it to become flat earthers, for crying out loud. This is why it's important to engage with people of all views. As much for our benefits as theirs. As repulsive as it may seem to us at times, we can learn a lot from the Aaron Rodgers of the world.

People entrenched into conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to engage. If everyone who can disprove your theory is in on the conspiracy, it only strengthens your resolve when provided evidence from those sources. Their logic is self-sealing.

There are thousands of people a day in this country dying because they are so committed to this conspiracy. Millions that are so entrenched that they are willing to put their friends and families lives at risk over it. I think it's narcissistic to believe that we can convince those people with some spirited debate.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People entrenched into conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to engage. If everyone who can disprove your theory is in on the conspiracy, it only strengthens your resolve when provided evidence from those sources. Their logic is self-sealing.

Reality isn't that monolithic. There are a lot of people like you describe, but it sounds to me like you may not have actually read my last post that you quoted. People legitimately trying to find answers come to widely differing points of view based on the same facts. Convincing them largely isn't the point. There's value in the discussions/debate even if nobody leaves it with a different opinion. A greater understanding of why we disagree can be gained. It can help people on both sides of whatever issue keep the 'opposition' humanized. The mental value in challenging our own POV. Etc. Changing people's minds rarely happens even outside of conspiracy theorists - and most of what Rodgers has said falls well outside of that anyway - but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from engaging.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A greater understanding of why we disagree can be gained.

But I know why we disagree. He doesn't believe the statistics that have been presented by the government and scientific community. He thinks there is a vast global conspiracy to hide the real cure because it is a generic drug. These are things he has said publicly.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But I know why we disagree. He doesn't believe the statistics that have been presented by the government and scientific community. He thinks there is a vast global conspiracy to hide the real cure because it is a generic drug. These are things he has said publicly.

Maybe if there wasn't such a political spin on everything, one could engage on these issues. You talk about Belief like it's some sort of religious truth. Studies are often messy. Even messier when a government appointee is presenting them. Faith and science don't play well together. Scientists have to be skeptics when they're analyzing a hypothesis because what they're trying to do is present a confidence that two concepts are not part of the same data set.

Rodgers has made the point that spirited debate and science are constants. He's absolutely right about that. We're only two years into COVID - medical researchers are still learning, and what they've learned so far is because their research proposals for human subjects have been fast-tracked.

We miss the opportunity to find out what his objections are when we vilify him, call him a heretic, make fun of his girlfriend's past, reduce his arguments to simple extreme statements and then attack those like he's an idiot. When we talk about "horse paste" and accuse him of being a Klan member.

Why would he engage with someone like that, then? Why would anyone engage in a real debate with someone who does that? And thus a chance to address what we're fairly certain isn't true (his Ivermectin conspiracy remarks) by pointing, calmly, to the studies that have already been written.

Perhaps, even, there are things you Believe that haven't been shown at all. If you've been relying on government appointees and the media rather than looking at studies, it's possible you've come to some conclusions that are just as dangerous as anyone else's. I don't know. You don't present yourself as someone who could have a calm, rational conversation about all of this. You sound just as entrenched as the extreme controversy Believers on the other side.

It's hard to talk about this stuff once it gets so political and so religious. Good advice on COVID has changed rapidly, and will continue to change. We're all in this together. I think the media has done far more harm than good with its continual hot takes and Beliefs. Their clicks come from division and hate, and that's exactly what we don't need right now.

[Flasch186]

I somewhat agree with this BUT there's a great many on both sides of the extreme that premeditatedly have said publicly or privately in encrypted ways that the end goal of debate is a 'fight or war or revolution'. These are dangerous groups and dangerous tides and I think the hard part is figuring out the line of people who are dabbling in crazy but keep a foot in moderation and those who dabble in moderation (vocally at times [I would argue a willingness to lie which I find ironic]) yet are preparing for the impending fight. That's why those who showed up at 1/6 with weapons and those who fought at the capital must be treated with the harshest of penalties. those who were merely swept up in the push to move towards the big building because 'tourism' might get a lesser slap on the hand. Yes some will be caught in both nets and that's a price one pays for being around their flock of feathers.

[Edward64]

Just for the record

“But when you say stuff like that, and then you have the CDC, which — how do you even trust them — but then they come out and talk about 75% of the COVID deaths have at least four comorbidities,” he continued. “And you still have this fake White House set saying that this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated. That’s not helping the conversation.”

Walensky said:

"A really important study — if I may just summarize it — a study of 1.2 million people who were vaccinated between December and October and demonstrated that severe disease occurred in about 0.015% of the people who receive their primary series. And death in 0.003% of those people. The overwhelming number of deaths — over 75% — occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who were unwell to begin with.

[JPhillips]

WHO WERE VACCINATED

[Edward64]

That's right. So the math (I think) is

1.2M vaccinated x .003% Deaths x 75%. So a miniscule number relatively speaking.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Ivermectin caught on because one study showed in a lab setting that a higher than approved use dosage of Ivermectin kills the Covid 19 virus. I'm sure there are countless other things we could find that kills Covid in a lab setting as well, but there's no evidence it works within the human body with the same effectiveness when given an approved dosage.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that liquid bleach administered via intramuscular injection would also destroy COVID*, but it's not a super great idea.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've read there is a robust Duke study going on the human version of Ivermectin (not the horse version).

Meanwhile, there are 3 vaccines with billions of administered doses being monitored by multiple health authorities for statistically significant adverse events and what has been found is that they are statistically safer than ivermectin even when ivermectin is administered to humans for its intended use.

To use an analogy appropriate for this forum, you are head coach of an NFL team down by 7 points with 2 minutes left in the game. I give you your choice of QB. You may have Tom Brady (Pfizer COVID vaccine) or LeBron James (Ivermectin). Which do you choose?

*though would unlikely be as effective as Pfizer's new antiviral drug

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Perhaps, even, there are things you Believe that haven't been shown at all. If you've been relying on government appointees and the media rather than looking at studies, it's possible you've come to some conclusions that are just as dangerous as anyone else's. I don't know. You don't present yourself as someone who could have a calm, rational conversation about all of this. You sound just as entrenched as the extreme controversy Believers on the other side.

It feels like you're asserting that it's just as legitimate to believe what Aaron Rodgers says about the science behind COVID as, say, Anthony Fauci.

If that's not what you're asserting, maybe you should clarify.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We miss the opportunity to find out what his objections are when we vilify him, call him a heretic, make fun of his girlfriend's past, reduce his arguments to simple extreme statements and then attack those like he's an idiot. When we talk about "horse paste" and accuse him of being a Klan member.

Why would he engage with someone like that, then? Why would anyone engage in a real debate with someone who does that? And thus a chance to address what we're fairly certain isn't true (his Ivermectin conspiracy remarks) by pointing, calmly, to the studies that have already been written.

We've missed nothing. Aaron Rodgers is a HOF NFL QB with ready access at any time to spread his message on national media both friendly (Rogan, FOX, OAN) and unfriendly.

He has been given ample opportunity to explain his position, he has taken that opportunity, and his assertions have been dissected and disproven by data, facts, and logic. Only then did the name-calling come out.