Printable View
That surprises me. I'd think you were a little to far north for that. We may get a few days of 110 each year but not many if any. I prefer it to 95F and 95 humidity. I visited my sister in Houston and it was smothering. Got up at 4am to go fishing and it was 85F and humid. It sucked. I guess you get use to the weather you live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I'm guessing Greece's climate is as strongly informed by it's mountains as by the seas. Mountains tend to suck moisture upwards and then dump it as rainfall. Florida doesn't have that effect, I don't think. Also, aren't there huge swamps in Florida? So although both Florida and Greece are coastal, I imagine the surface area available for evaporation is much higher in Florida.
I used to live in ***** Nigeria which, like Florida, is pretty flat and on the coast. Worse, it's on a big river Delta so it's basically a bunch of islands connected by creeks and rivers. It was hella humid.
Anyway, the answers about mask wearing are about as I'd have expected and seem sensible. Not needed outside (unless you're in a crowd - which you really should avoid anyway) but should be worn inside.
Edit> Weird. ***** is banned by the profanity filter. L_a_g_o_s.
Well I found "law abiding gun owners" as one slang meaning, but who can say why it is on the blacklist?
It's quite rare, thankfully. We tend to get over 100 every year, but only for a week, or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
It's not latitude, though, it has to do with orographic effects. The mountains on either side of the valley force air masses upwards, which causes them to cool and drop any moisture. That airmass then sinks into the valley, warming and drying.
I remember Funky been in Greece and complimenting the climate.
But then again, any climate is better than the British one :p
That's part of it. It seems all the US state that border the Gulf of Mexico are extremely humid. The Gulf water is very warm, in August between 85 - 87. There is plenty of rain also. The Gulf Stream play a major role in the worlds weather, even England.Quote:
Florida doesn't have that effect, I don't think. Also, aren't there huge swamps in Florida?
Anyway, that's my guess.
The great drizzly, green, dump of a land? I actually kind of like that. This place is a bit TOO dry. I grew up in New England, which had plenty of rain, summer heat, summer humidity, winters of cold and snow. A nice mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
Florida isn't so much a swamp as a giant river with almost no gradient and therefore almost no current. It's flowing towards the sea, though. It acts as both a giant evaporating pan, and a giant solar concentrator. We measured water temperatures over 40c, a few times. That meant that, if you managed to find a way to get cold (perhaps in a driving rain), you could warm up by jumping into the water.
Oddly, as flat and low as Florida is, the mainland still drives storms. It doesn't take much elevation to start the air rising. It may just be heating of the land mass that does it. Whatever the cause, the result is that the mainland gets considerably more rain than the Keys, which are an island chain off the southern tip of the state. We could sit on a patio and watch the lightning storms over the mainland. Kind of nice, really.
There is also a problem with the hurricanes over there.
Mediterranean is a closed sea so we are spared but I see hurricanes over there every year that cost a lot of lives.
Yeah, and tornados...and lightning, when you get right down to it.
My understanding is that the monster F5 tornados of the US midwest are unique to that area. Tornados in the rest of the world are FAR smaller, less devastating, and less common. Little more than oversized whirlwinds. Why, it makes me want to wax positively Trumpian: Our tornadoes are HUUUUGE. We have the biggest tornados of anybody. Nobody has tornados that are anywhere close to the size that ours are.
For lightning, I believe that Florida leads the US by a wide margin for number of strikes per year (there are other parts of the country that have more strikes, just not LIGHTNING strikes). I think there is somewhere else in the world that tops Florida, though I can't remember where, so I think Florida is #1 in the US, but not #1 in the world.
We don't have the biggest hurricanes, either. Typhoons (same storm, different ocean) can get larger. Now, if we could get one of those storms to suck up the right kind of bacteria, and spread it widely with devastating effect, we could have a Typhoid Typhoon, which would be REALLY bad. It would be worse than a Sharknadoo.
British weather is a bit crap but at least it's not trying to kill us.
The one thing I learned while living in Florida: EVERYTHING down there is trying to kill you. The plants, the animals, the weather, EVERYTHING!!
The Inflating of Fears
He goes on to say why this isn't all bad, and was inevitable. He also goes into how the impact will differ based on where you live, as well as how US coastal colonialism of the rest of America will end.Quote:
The United States is experiencing the fastest increase in prices since at least the peak of the subprime boom back in 2008 – in April inflation was already up 4.2% from a year earlier – generating waves of criticism for the Biden administration, whose spending plans are credited with artificially spiking demand.
So the nightmare may be ending.Quote:
Nor are Americans staying put. The Boomers, America’s largest-ever generation, are moving to warmer locales as they retire en masse. The Millennials, America’s second-largest-ever generation, are moving away from the major coastal cities to places where they can afford single-family homes so they can raise their new families. No one wants to be in a bus or subway everyday where they might be exposed to COVID. Collectively, mass relocations are adding huge demand pressures to any and all suburban locations, particularly those in the South, Southwest, and Mountain West.
Quote:
Folks, this is it. Globalization is over. Even if the Americans decided that they wanted to continue to patrol the world, even if the Americans could keep making the world safe for international trade, global demographics and global capital tell us the page has already turned. Global aging meant that global consumption and investment was always going to collapse this decade, and then coronavirus moved the end forward. Most countries will never recover economically to where they were at the beginning of 2020 when the health crisis struck.
I've heard prophesies of doom for a long time. Keep calling it, and eventually you'll be right.
I feel that some inflation OUGHT to happen. A boost in the interest rate wouldn't be unwelcome to me (primarily a saver), though it would be to a whole lot of people. Still, the Fed feels that this inflationary bump is transitory. I'm not sure that I agree, but the last few decades has shown us one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: WE DON'T KNOW!! Even after the fact we can't be sure what it was we saw, let alone having a clear picture of what is coming.
I'd sacrifice a sheep and study the entrails, but I'm not really into mutton. Therefore, I sacrificed some fish on a bed of rice with a touch of wasabi. I didn't learn much, though. Maybe it really does require a sheep???
It looked more descriptive than predictive to me.
Trump's export restrictions expired last March. Now over 2 months later under pressure Biden has relaxed his extension of restrictions. This means a few more jobs in Kalamazoo making the Pfizer vaccine and more in Grand Rapids in the packaging and shipping company Pfizer uses.
The change means supplies will start rolling out from Michigan to Mexico and Canada, relieving pressure on supplies from facilities in Belgium.
I haven't heard a lot about Mexico, but Ontario has been having trouble. There are major supply chains (and thus truck drivers and commuters) running through Windsor and Sarnia.
Dear America: Don’t want those vaccines? Canada does
The truth is that Windsorians willing to drive through Zona Infectada (a.k.a. Detroit) into counties to the west have been able to get vaccinated by county health departments for weeks now. Detroit itself has a problem in that it has the lowest vaccine uptake in Michigan so health officials worry about giving people any excuse for staying away.
That's kind of funny, considering that Canada bought somewhere around nine doses for every person in the country. What happened to them?
They Had Leftover COVID Vaccines. So They Offered Them To Their Canadian Neighbors
Quote:
David Musyj, president of Windsor Regional Hospital in Ontario, hopes to access vaccination at a larger scale for residents of his community, also home to 3,000 health care personnel who work on the U.S. side of the border. His hospital system has received patients transferred from the hard-hit Toronto region in recent weeks.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, recently extended its stay-at-home order to June, citing high cases per capita and positivity rates.
Keeping infantilized animal slaves has consequences:
New human coronavirus that originated in dogs identified
Quote:
Researchers have identified and completed the genetic analysis of a newly discovered coronavirus – one that has evolved from a coronavirus that afflicts dogs to infect humans and may contribute to respiratory symptoms.
The discovery of the first dog coronavirus found to have crossed over to infecting people underscores the treacherous nature of coronaviruses and the need to monitor animal viruses as a way of predicting possible threats to public health, researchers say.
Quote:
“We don’t really have evidence right now that this virus can cause severe illness in adults,” Vlasova said, citing the fact that only one person in the study found to have been infected with the new coronavirus was an adult. “I cannot rule out the possibility that at some point this new coronavirus will become a prevalent human pathogen. Once a coronavirus is able to infect a human, all bets are off.”
Meh,
You'll find something experimental to vaccinate again.
The problem is the parrots. Infected to humans would be very annoying. "Polly wanna look at those earphones, Polly wanna look at those earphones, scraaaa"
About the origin of Covid, it is every time clearer that it originated in a lab in Wuhan:
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/orig...es-6f03564c038
And scientists (with power) today are no more scientists, but politicians or employees of laboratories. What they tell is not based on science but in other interests.
The one that do not follow the rules (and directions) is simple: is fired.
It is proven that Ivermectin is useful on preventing Covid and also in alleviating the disease, but in main media and government agencies it is discarded and "not recomended".
It is because it is too cheap (laboratories don't make money).
There were already many studies by true independent scientists which proved its effectiveness.
I'm still puzzled by the Greek parrot infatuation with earphones.
Is that a meme there or something?
No the person has covid and is parrotin....OK you didn't get it.
There are many drugs that are useful against covid but people seem to prefer getting vaccinated than druggated but, let's not go into circles again. Vaccine good fire bad, err, :o
I always assumed it would be the cats that got us.
Viruses jumping across species is nothing new. It happens all the time and isn't something to panic about. Deadly viruses jumping across species... that's more worrying. Thankfully this doesn't look like that.
WHAT'S THE CARROT GOING TO BE?
"Our freedoms are intentionally denied to us precisely to force us to accept vaccination as the only way out.
This is Leana Wen, professor of health policy at George Washington University, writes in the Washington Post and appears frequently as a commentator on CNN MSNBC and BBC.
She was also honored by the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders. And in 2019, she was named as one of TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People.
Listen to what she said in a recent CNN interview.
She was talking about the fact that many U.S. states like Florida and Texas are already reopening to 100% and therefore the number of vaccinated is declining rapidly. That is, in some American states they are realizing that you can go back to living comfortably without vaccinations.
And that, obviously put her on edge.
Listen carefully:"
https://fb.watch/5Fjoq_j3nU/
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2846696018944081
01:07:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1KsDNQWrgU&t=4050s
TRANSCRIPT:
-But I think that there are many more people, millions of people who, for whatever reason, have concerns about the vaccine, who just don't know what's in it for them. And we need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-Pandemic life. And the window to do that is really narrowing.
I mean, you were mentioning, Chris, about how all these states are reopening. They are reopening at a 100 percent. And we have a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status. Because otherwise, if everything is reopened, then what's the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine?
So that's why I think the CDC and the Biden Administration needs to come out a lot bolder and say, "If you're vaccinated, you can do all these things. Here are all these freedoms that you have," because otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway. -
"You get the picture:
If you reopen everything, how are we going to incentivize people to get vaccinated? What will be the carrot we could give them if they take back all their freedoms?"
Yeah, and if you don't understand the context, that would be alarming. If you DO understand the context, then it's meaningless.
There are drugs that can treat sick people. Those drugs ALL have side effects, several which are potentially pretty bad. None of those drugs 'cure' a virus. They go after the bodies reactions to the virus, and those reactions can be deadly in themselves, but they don't cure a virus. What this means is that they will work better for some people than for others, and for some people they will be worse than the disease itself. Meanwhile, a vaccine shows your body what to attack, and then your body takes care of the virus before the infection gets a hold. So, you're favoring drugs with significant side effects and limited effect over just training your body to fight off the virus, the same as it would do without either drugs or vaccines (unless it failed and you died). That seems crazy, to me. However, that's also the path that India decided to follow. How's that working out?
That's also what that quote is about. If people are immune to the virus, then of course it doesn't matter. It will be just one of the millions of viruses our bodies swat aside each and every day. The vaccine can convey immunity, as can being infected and recovering (as long as you do recover). If enough of the population is immune, then the virus will fade out. At that point, if you are not vaccinated, and those around you are, you're still safe. It's the same safety that Apple users claimed. It wasn't that viruses couldn't attack Apple computers, it's just that nobody bothered writing such viruses because Apple users were too rare to spread it around. Similarly, if everyone around you is immune, then there is nobody to give you the disease, so it doesn't matter whether you are immune or not. However, immunity comes from infection or vaccination, and by no other means. So, if you open everything back up before enough people have immunity, then you...becomes India.
That's the point behind the vaccination: If enough people are immune, then the virus won't spread, even to those who are not immune. If things open up before that level of immunity is achieved, well, we're seeing how that works out, even in a population FAR younger than states like Florida (where the average age is up around the average daily temperature in Fahrenheit). Immunity comes from infection or vaccination, so you can push vaccination or you can push death.
Next time some idiot nearly crashes into you blowing through his stop sign or red light just remember that feeling.
I think a very good case can be made for locking anyone refusing vaccines into their homes or maybe FEMA camps, but enforcement isn't practical.
We let idiots drive cars for the same reason. Some are so aware of how dangerous they are that they insist on driving heavy jacked up SUVs and pickup trucks hoping that will save them when they inevitably crash into others.
Ivermectin has no side effects. It is no dangerous at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
OK, there might be special cases (very special), the same happen with vaccines.
And it doesn't go after the reactions caused by the virus, instead it has antiviral effects, reducing the amount of viruses that multiply in the body in the early stage of the disease.
It must be applied soon, immediately.
Some people also use it as prevention.
The problem, as I said, is that it is too cheap.
This an study, but there are many.
It does not replace the vaccines, it is something else that can save lives. Of course, labs don't care about saving lives, they only care about themselves.
And the payed press and media publish what they are being payed to publish.
But some people decide to believe everything that TV says, that's a choice.
I've seen a number of videos on Ivermectin, many of them positive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFcF2ppAeR4
..... deleted .....
Very good!:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Tucker Carlson Today Dr Peter McCullough May 7, 2021 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQKobdyZtpQ
Full version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7cLxs8fNq8
My only doubt is if is all about money only or there is an even more sinister plan behind.
In the case it is about money, they are mass murdering people doing so anyway, so it is also sinister.
Don't believe that those people can be so evil? I do.
I do because of the evidence. It is hard to believe (that those people can be so bad), but I think it is clear already.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this seems real to me.
EVERYTHING has side effects. Water can kill you if you drink too much. Toxicologists say that it's always just a matter of dosage. In the case of Ivermectin, here are some side effects listed by the US FDA:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Quote:
Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis).
If you're talking about me, keep in mind that I have never owned a TV. That's a choice, too.Quote:
But some people decide to believe everything that TV says, that's a choice.
You believe in conspiracy theories. This entire post can be summed up as: I believe there is a conspiracy to kill people for profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
So, why say you don't believe in conspiracy theories when you are flat out stating a conspiracy theory that you believe in.
Ivermectin is used for parasites, which means it works against eukaryotes. WE are eukaryotes. Antibiotics go after the differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, so they can kill bacteria without affecting us. Anything that goes after eukaryotes is about ingesting a poison in sufficient quantities to harm the eukaryotes you don't want without ingesting a quantity sufficient to harm you. What is that dose?
As I said: there is no problematic side effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
If you drink 20 liters water you'll have problem, and if you eat 100 kg. of Ivermectin, too, obviously.
These things there is not need to be cleared between mature people.
Believe what you feel comfortable, TV or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
1984...
What is the point of Ivermectin, anyways? You don't want to deal with two shots (which are free in the US, but may not be elsewhere), but would rather take a pill for several days, and possibly for months, depending on the study?
What's the rationale here? Do you prefer pills for days over two shots? Are you thinking that one is free and the other is not? Are you thinking there are more side effects to one over the other? If COVID is real, which you seem to recognize because you talk about alternate treatments, and you are accepting of treatments, why is this one acceptable and a vaccine is not?
I'm not saying to anyone not to take the vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I didn't talk about that. I have my personal thoughts but since I'm not sure about anything regarding the vaccine, I don't want to say anything.
It is that there is something that can help to treat the disease, and it is proven that helps, and these people says that "it is not recommended" and "there is no scientific proof that it helps" and things like that.
The clinic evidence (tests) also shows that it is useful if used as prevention (at least for not having a severe case), and considering that the vaccine is not available in all the world in the same way, it could be useful for the people that can't get the vaccine right now.
Also, this knowledge was already available like a year ago, when there were no vaccine at all.
Why to deny it? Somebody can explain? (it is rhetoric)
When I said that I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I meant that I do not believe these kind of things usually, but I made my research in the subject of Ivermectin and I see that there are strange things regarding the issue.
Too many, too many doctors that conducted tests and attest the results.
Nobody have to believe me, I presented the evidence (or some).
I think that I am talking with intelligent people that can make their own judgment and conclusions.
And it is not that I'm saying go Shaggy and take Ivermectin, I never took it myself BTW, they are comments in Chit-Chat about things that I see that are happening in the world.
For someone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, you sure say a lot of conspiracy theory stuff !!Quote:
When I said that I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I meant that I do not believe these kind of things usually
So I have heard this a few times, and its just isn't true.Quote:
It is proven that Ivermectin is useful on preventing Covid and also in alleviating the disease
Ivermectin is not proven at all to prevent Covid, even the doctors (mainly in South Africa) who support the use of Ivermectin do not say it is a prevention, but that they claim it is highly effective in treating people who have Covid and prevents serious disease. That is there claim.
I looked into this is my Girlfriend shared number of articles and videos about it with me, and if you read into it more deeply Ivermectin is being used in places like South Africa and I think more recently India to treat people in hospital with Covid.
Some doctors have conducted meta analysis of various smaller studies around the world and they say that the result of the meta analysis show that Ivermectin has significant positive results in preventing severe disease in Covid patients.
Some doctors also claim that they have empirical evidence of it working with there patients.
They say this analysis should be enough for regulators to approve Ivermectin for use for Covid patients so that there Countries medical system will bare the cost and Doctors can prescribe it to all Patients.
The Regulators in various countries around the world argue that the meta analysis is flawed as it includes trials where they are giving Patients multiple drugs where it is difficult to tell which drug actually caused the effect on the patient and also trials which were not conducted to proper clinical standards.
There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement in the medical establishment as to whether Ivermectin is effective or not and its critics argue that like any drug including the vaccines it would need to undergo proper large scale trials and prove its effectiveness that way in order for regulators to approve it.
I have no personal feelings as to whether Ivermectin should be used or not, but i have strong feelings that it should have to go through the same process as any other drug that wants to be approves by the medical regulator.
The Vaccines which you disparage have had to go through the large scale clinic trial process, Ivermectin has not.
Hard for me to understand these people that argue for using a drug that treats a disease instead of a drug that prevents a disease. They work so hard at trying discredit the vaccine and there are plenty of people with a laptop and video camera posting unfounded theories. Now they're pounding their chest over Ivermectin. I guess it would make them happier if the pharmaceutical company made money on that drug instead of the vaccine.
Most of the time the conspiracy spreaders don't bother me, in fact it's fun to listen to. But this is life and death for some people, there isn't anything interesting or funny about that.
I don't believe in those conspiracy theories like that the man didn't go to the moon, that there are UFOs found with alien technology that the government tries to hide, or that the vaccine is intended to create infertility to lower the world population and if financed by Bill gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
But it is quite clear to me that there were and there are some conspiracies.
For example, all the leftists and the status quo of politicians along with main mass media and social media joined to make Trump to loose the election.
That's one I wouldn't say "I believe", because I don't need to believe, I saw it.
About this one, that the labs are discrediting medicines that they are not selling, is another one that it seems to me quite clear already.
You can mock if you want, as I said: believe mass media and everything what governments and WHO says, if you want.
I don't disbelieve everything that they say but try to investigate on my own.
And my conclusion already is that they can't be trusted.
Lets see.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
It is not only South Africa, there are like 100 countries already (a random number, an estimation).Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Now you you are saying that it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
About that the studies don't meet the standards, these are excuses, false claims. And there are hundreds of studies already all around the world.
None of them meet the standards? Give me a break.
How can it be, that with almost an year and a half of this pandemic, all 2020 with every lab and every country trying to find a cure or something that helps to mitigate this, with many, many studies on Ivermectin that are showing that it works, no one institution that they believe can conduct a study that "meet the standards" was conducted, to say a definitive word regarding whether it works or not???
Unbelievable.
Well, yes believable (at least for me), they won't a solution for the pandemic that they cannot make money.
If course, that makes no sense to people that believe only in mass media, because politicians are all good, WHO has the most honest and qualified people and scientists in the world, and the labs want to save people lives and money is unimportant or a secondary goal for them.
Ahh, and journalists never sell an article, but they are all honest and tell you always the truth and nothing but the truth.
(About journalists , many must believe also things like Trump is a bad guy and things like that, because they don't escape the mass media bombing either)
I said nothing about vaccines, intentional lie or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Are you lying intentionally or just didn't read what I wrote (too)?Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
What did I lie about.Quote:
Are you lying intentionally or just didn't read what I wrote (too)?
Ivermectin may well help. It is not allowed in the US, because it would take a special exemption under FDA rules for it to be approved for something as off purpose as this. That could happen, and further study of the anti-viral action of the drug seems like a REALLY good idea. After all, we don't have any good anti-virals, so if one was found, that would be impressive. Anything that shows promise should be studied further in this regard. It is telling that the company that developed the drug (Merck) said that it won't work for this, but there are studies that suggest that it might, so that should be studied.
Having said that, regardless of whether or not those studies are correct, Ivermectin is worse than vaccines in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY. If you don't believe that, think it through: You have two alternative, the first is to use if for prophylaxis (preventing the disease ahead of time) the second is to use it for treatment (moderating symptoms after the disease has been diagnosed). For both paths, you have to determine what the treatment regimen would look like. That isn't clear for prophylaxis, so say it is one pill per week. For the second, it looks like a course of pills for five days with perhaps a couple follow up pills over the next month.
If you want to stop the disease using prophylaxis, that would mean that the vast majority of people in the world would have to be taking the prophylaxis at the same time. If they don't take it at the same time, then the disease would be in one place, then another, then another, and so on, always chasing those populations not taking the prophylaxis. That would mean that you'd have to manufacture and distribute several billion doses per week, which is FAR harder than what is currently being done with vaccines. It's probably off patent, so all kinds of people would be getting a piece of THAT action, good and bad. It might be the largest drug manufacturing operation in history, so it has all the negatives of the vaccines, doesn't confer immunity (once you stop taking it, you're just as vulnerable as you were before), and it has more side effects. Even rare side effects are not so rare when you scale out to billions of people.
So, prophylaxis is probably beyond our reach. The alternative is to use it as treatment. You need a lot more for each person, but there would be FAR fewer people. Tens of millions of doses a month would probably do, which is entirely within reach. An outbreak like India would strain the system to the breaking point, and you still aren't conveying immunity, but India is a rare case. However, with COVID, it is well established that you are infectious for days before symptoms appear, so treating the symptoms wouldn't solve a thing, as the damage could be done before you ever knew to treat. Once again, the side effects will appear with that many people taking higher doses of the drug, and while the studies do suggest that death and serious consequences are reduced, they are not reduced as far as the better vaccines, so you'd still be saying that people would die, just not as many.
Basically, as long as you are using it because you don't have anything better, it's hard to argue against doing that, but Ivermectin is a worse solution than the better vaccines in every way: It imposes a greater burden on users (they have to take more, and for longer), it has worse side effects, it doesn't result in you body being any better at dealing with COVID, and the logistical and financial cost of treating the world would be considerably higher than it is for vaccines.
There's just no good reason to do that, unless you have no alternative.
If you were talking about me, everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I think antivirals work as an alternative to buy time until vaccine supplies can be secured and distributed into the hinterlands. Aside from that there seems like there is little worth saying.
One problem we're seeing in the US is that besides the people cowering away from vaccination there are about 8% who got their first dose but then never came back for the second booster dose. You'd expect some of that through incompetence, but 8%? For those with a bad case of innumeracy, that's approaching 1 in 10 people.
Remember to drive defensively, they'll let anyone drive.
So,Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
Your saying this is a lie, that I really do understand
Your saying this is a lie, that there are no people trying to discredit the vaccine.Quote:
Hard for me to understand these people that argue for using a drug that treats a disease instead of a drug that prevents a disease.
Your saying this is a lie, that there are no people doing thisQuote:
They work so hard at trying discredit the vaccine and there are plenty of people with a laptop and video camera posting unfounded theories. Now they're pounding their chest over Ivermectin.
This is just an opinion, maybe I'm wrong but it's not a lie.Quote:
Now they're pounding their chest over Ivermectin.
Quote:
I guess it would make them happier if the pharmaceutical company made money on that drug instead of the vaccine.
You think I'm lying about how I feel?
You give me too much credit for my lying abilities. lolQuote:
Most of the time the conspiracy spreaders don't bother me, in fact it's fun to listen to. But this is life and death for some people, there isn't anything interesting or funny about that.
Repeating lies does not make them true.
BuT vOtEr FrAuD!!!!
-tg
I think Eduardo's explanation what misinterpreted in the first place (of course he can correct me). The chosen word "conspiracy" was a little hard to digest.
I believe what was meant to be said was "chance" not conspiracy. Pharmaceuticals found a chance to make more money.
For the sake of conversation, let's say that vaccines is the cure, well, the pharmaceuticals were giving it to the highest bidder(at least in Europe), also other vaccines were left out initially and proclaimed "forbidden" in EU, like the Russian and Chinese, until EU members broke the barrier.
So even if vaccination would have saved us, pharmas were running in circles delaying the doses or shelling to the highest bidder,note that we prepaid them for the vaccines -aka government idiots and we were not having the promised doses that THEY got the money for. Eventually the doses were balanced but most of us don't want them and pharmaceuticals were , as I've said, prepaid, so shipping or not shipping doses, they don't care , they got the mulla.
Now, let's correct Shaggy since using hi tech Greek words need love and tender... :)
Prophylaxis is singular, so it denotes a precaution , so it's like saying "taking precaution" for many people.
"The vast majority of people in the world would have to be taking precaution - prophylaxis"
That does not add up, you need plural aka "precautions" thus prophylaxes.
(I hope I won't get bullied for my English writing now :p )
Yeah, I really do believe 8%. Of course, some portion of that will be due to circumstances arising such that they couldn't come back for the second, but an incompetence rate of 5% wouldn't surprise me. I was a census taker back in 1990. The test you had to pass to get that job was pathetic. I remember having some city grid (though in NH, we barely had cities, let alone grids) with an A and a B on it. You had to do something like draw a line from A to B. I was told that a fantastic percentage of applicants failed that test. I also got assigned to clean up the mess some other guy had made. He had several houses located in what proved to be a swamp, houses on the wrong side of towns, and plenty of other things. People were sure mad at me, as I could end up being the third or fourth person showing up to talk to them as I tried to sort out the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Nah, teased maybe, but not bullied. Heck, I'd rep you for that, except that this is Chit Chat, so...no rep for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
What I had said in the first place is that I don't believe in conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
Then I was accused of otherwise.
Since I don't know exactly when something should be labeled as a conspiracy and when it shouldn't, I added as an explanation that I don't believe (or pay attention) to conspiracy theories "usually".
A conspiracy (or something like that) can be true, or not?
Conspiracy or not (and I'll repeat for th time) it is what I see that is happening: labs trying to discredit a medicine because they don't profit from it.
OK, that the reason is because that they don't profit from it is an inference, very valid and logic to me, but that they are discrediting a medicine that has proven successful against the disease there is no doubt.
In the meantime died millions of people that could had been saved.
(contrary to what someone here accused me -that with these ideas people die-, totally opposite)
I just want to clarify (for anyone honest that is reading), that I "personally" don't advocate to use it as prevention, but as early treatment after a covid infection. But if someone want to take it as prevention until she/he get the change to be vaccinated I see no wrong and I think is valid and rational (and also proven effective).
I'm not saying "take that instead of the vaccine" as some liars here implied.
Nevertheless it is a free world, and nobody should be in position of forcing other people to take something that they don't want (I mean for the ones that don't trust on the vaccine).
To think otherwise is fascist (for more reason that you think you have).
I remember Jehovah Witness that they refuse to have blood transfusions because they believe it is a sin. And in some cases they are forced to receive a transfusion. I don't agree wit that either, even if someone dies for their decisions and belief, they should be free to decide (as long as they are mentally competent persons).
Well that clears things up. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Eduardo-
But you are right sapator, "conspiracy" is too strong, because that involves many people according something.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapator
It is just that labs are doing their business (in a very unmoral way) and other people are payed to spread what they say.
And WHO moves following political interests of their bosses (China, whatever), not for people interests.
So it stands what I said at first: I don't believe in conspiracy theories.
It doesn't qualify as a conspiracy.
You are one that has read paying attention.
A "conspiracy" if you like, is how or why the covid escaped the Chinese labs, something that is questionable but I don't have a solid answer. Biological weapons or not, I can't be sure.