Coronavirus COVID-19

[89Hen]

They're two different things, and the administration has vastly more power with the federal workforce than they do with private industry. In all likelihood, the federal mandate will get through the courts, but the end around to use OSHA for private industry won't survive the court challenge.

Can the government make vaccination a requirement:

• To collect welfare assistance?
• For immigration into the country?

The Biden administration pushing the federal and large employer mandates while doing nothing about the above is hypocritical and pours gasoline on the fire of resistance.

I was referring to welfare, not gov employees.

[UNI88]

Can the government make vaccination a requirement:

• To collect welfare assistance?
• For immigration into the country?

The Biden administration pushing the federal and large employer mandates while doing nothing about the above is hypocritical and pours gasoline on the fire of resistance.

I was referring to welfare, not gov employees.

I know you were, that't why I asked "can the government make vaccination a requirement to collect welfare assistance. I added immigration. If Biden is serious about the vaccines then he also should be requiring vaccination for all those immigrants he's letting in.

[SDHornet]

We don't have any long term data so no one can make that claim now. But we do now this is being forced into kids 5-11 and only 94 of 28M in that age group died with the China Virus since this all began.

You are taking snippets of truth and manufacturing a narrative to continue the fear. There have been 7.41 billion doses of the vaccine given. That's a good amount of data. Nearly all effects from the vaccine will be exposed in the first 6 weeks. Do the research and make your choice, don't try and shove a narrative up my ass, cause I'll shit it out back on you.

Ok, so still no hard finding on long term effects...because he duration since vaxxes given hasn't been long term.

[SDHornet]

Oh.

[LeadBolt]

The fact there are a few people stupid enough to take an ACTUAL horse dewormer aside, it's not what the vast majority taking ivermectin are taking. But you also knew THAT...(I'm not sure Klammy can make that distinction)...

Anybody taking Ivermectin in any form thinking that it will be effective against SARS-CoV-2 is an idiot.

Source?

Knowing that you “follow the science “, I’d love to educate myself by reading the scientific study you have read.

My son-in-law’s mother runs a free clinic in Honduras with limited resources. They are able to get ivermectin and believe it to work.

I would like to help her verify or deny.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

You are taking snippets of truth and manufacturing a narrative to continue the fear. There have been 7.41 billion doses of the vaccine given. That's a good amount of data. Nearly all effects from the vaccine will be exposed in the first 6 weeks. Do the research and make your choice, don't try and shove a narrative up my ass, cause I'll shit it out back on you.

Ok, so still no hard finding on long term effects...because he duration since vaxxes given hasn't been long term.

Why would there be long term effects, if the vaccine wears out in 8 months? Many of us are on our 3 shots.

[SDHornet]

Ok, so still no hard finding on long term effects...because he duration since vaxxes given hasn't been long term.

Why would there be long term effects, if the vaccine wears out in 8 months? Many of us are on our 3 shots.

You seem not to understand what "long term" is.

[Gil Dobie]

Why would there be long term effects, if the vaccine wears out in 8 months? Many of us are on our 3 shots.

You seem not to understand what "long term" is.

You seam to not understand what the vaccine is.

[AZGrizFan]

Ok, so still no hard finding on long term effects...because he duration since vaxxes given hasn't been long term.

Why would there be long term effects, if the vaccine wears out in 8 months? Many of us are on our 3 shots.

The efficacy of the vaccine <> negative impact it may have on other parts of your body.

[JohnStOnge]

Anybody taking Ivermectin in any form thinking that it will be effective against SARS-CoV-2 is an idiot.

Source?

Knowing that you “follow the science “, I’d love to educate myself by reading the scientific study you have read.

My son-in-law’s mother runs a free clinic in Honduras with limited resources. They are able to get ivermectin and believe it to work.

I would like to help her verify or deny.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have two outstanding science agencies in the United States that are responsible to reviewing all the research on such questions and they both say Ivermectin has not been shown to be effective. There are no studies that people on the internet, people working as local doctors, or people doing podcasts, etc., have seen and evaluated that have not been seen and evaluated by people at the FDA and the CDC. The FDA and the CDC have batteries of statisticians, medical doctors, epidemiologists, virologists, etc. at their disposal and they have processes for evaluating research that have served this country very well for decades.

Think about this as well: There are at least two oral therapeutics that are on the cusp of approval in the United States right now, one by Merck and one by Pfizer, because their safety and effectiveness are backed up by clinical trials. The Merck medication, molnupiravir, was recently approved for use in the United Kingdom. It is very likely both will be approved as COVID-19 treatments in the United States.

In contrast, we've been talking about this Ivermectin thing for a long time now and, as far as I know, there is no indication that anything near sufficient evidence to approve it for use has been submitted. The company that makes it, Merck, has a web page up that includes the statement:

Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today affirmed its position regarding use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

That was first posted in February. But I think it's reasonable to think that, if anything had changed, they'd have changed that statement on their web page.

At this point, if there was compelling evidence that meets the standards for drug approval for saying Ivermectin is safe and effective for treating COVID-19, I think we'd have seen some movement like we've seen with the two therapeutics I described. I guess you could think Merck is just downplaying Ivermectin so it can make money off of molnupiravir. But I think that is tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory stuff.

So you've got the foremost agency with respect to assessing new drugs in the world, FDA, saying it has not been shown to be effective and you've got the foremost disease control/epidemiology agency in the world, CDC, saying the same thing. And you've got the company that makes the drug saying what it's saying. I guess I could try finding a nicer way to say it but I think you have to be an idiot to be relying on Ivermectin.

[Gil Dobie]

Why would there be long term effects, if the vaccine wears out in 8 months? Many of us are on our 3 shots.

The efficacy of the vaccine <> negative impact it may have on other parts of your body.

This has been posted several times. But I can't stop people from pushing fear.

Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's what I think is a good BBC article on Ivermectin:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

So you can go ahead and do the typical "conservative" thing about "CAN'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA!!!!" because that's what "conservatives" do nowadays when confronted with information that contradicts what they want to believe. But the FDA and the CDC also say there's not sufficient evidence to say Ivermectin works. So does the company that makes Ivermectin. At some point one needs to give it up.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's what I think is a good BBC article on Ivermectin:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

So you can go ahead and do the typical "conservative" thing about "CAN'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA!!!!" because that's what "conservatives" do nowadays when confronted with information that contradicts what they want to believe. But the FDA and the CDC also say there's not sufficient evidence to say Ivermectin works. So does the company that makes Ivermectin. At some point one needs to give it up.

So in other words, it’s just like the global warming science.

[JohnStOnge]

See https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/1 ... mFAmjKvo6A.

I can remember expressing concern about that sort of thing from Trump before he got elected. I said there would be political interference with science agencies, economic analysis agencies, etc., because Trump operates through misinformation. He would interfere with objective information efforts because they would contradict his misinformation efforts.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's what I think is a good BBC article on Ivermectin:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809



So you can go ahead and do the typical "conservative" thing about "CAN'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA!!!!" because that's what "conservatives" do nowadays when confronted with information that contradicts what they want to believe. But the FDA and the CDC also say there's not sufficient evidence to say Ivermectin works. So does the company that makes Ivermectin. At some point one needs to give it up.

So in other words, it’s just like the global warming science.

"

No, because Climate Science has limitations in that there is no opportunity for controlled experiments to demonstrate cause and effect. When it comes to evaluating drugs for safety and effectiveness, controlled experiments can be conducted. I think that, at this point, there has been plenty enough time to demonstrate through controlled experimentation that Ivermectin is safe and effective in addressing COVID-19 through controlled experimentation. Plenty of time to demonstrate it to FDA's satisfaction according to the standards applied to any drug proposed for treatment. It has not happened. The company that makes the drug does not think so either.

[SDHornet]

The efficacy of the vaccine <> negative impact it may have on other parts of your body.

This has been posted several times. But I can't stop people from pushing fear.

Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.

Which should be weighed against the risk of health impacts from catching the China Virus (which can happen even if you are vaxxed). It goes back to being a personal decision vs one that is forced upon you. Understanding the risks and making a decision depends on the person (age, health, etc).

I have no problem with anyone getting vaxed who wants it. But why the fuck are we mandating kids get vaxed when a minuscule amount of them are dying from the China Virus? For that demographic, the risks of an adverse affect from the jab out weigh the risks from the China Virus and it's not even a tough decision to make or analyze with the data we have on hand.

[CID1990]

This has been posted several times. But I can't stop people from pushing fear.

Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.

Which should be weighed against the risk of health impacts from catching the China Virus (which can happen even if you are vaxxed). It goes back to being a personal decision vs one that is forced upon you. Understanding the risks and making a decision depends on the person (age, health, etc).

I have no problem with anyone getting vaxed who wants it. But why the fuck are we mandating kids get vaxed when a minuscule amount of them are dying from the China Virus? For that demographic, the risks of an adverse affect from the jab out weigh the risks from the China Virus and it's not even a tough decision to make or analyze with the data we have on hand.

Agreed on the kids. We also have an increasing body of evidence that shows that not only is COVID not lethal to kids by any significant measure, but also that kids are not a significant vector for the virus.

There is at least partially an element of needing to be seen as “doing something” behind child vax measures and shenanigans with schools


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

4th wave hitting Europe. Yipeee!

[89Hen]

I was referring to welfare, not gov employees.

I know you were, that't why I asked "can the government make vaccination a requirement to collect welfare assistance. I added immigration. If Biden is serious about the vaccines then he also should be requiring vaccination for all those immigrants he's letting in.

Sorry, I was directing that at GF.

[UNI88]

Which should be weighed against the risk of health impacts from catching the China Virus (which can happen even if you are vaxxed). It goes back to being a personal decision vs one that is forced upon you. Understanding the risks and making a decision depends on the person (age, health, etc).

I have no problem with anyone getting vaxed who wants it. But why the fuck are we mandating kids get vaxed when a minuscule amount of them are dying from the China Virus? For that demographic, the risks of an adverse affect from the jab out weigh the risks from the China Virus and it's not even a tough decision to make or analyze with the data we have on hand.

Agreed on the kids. We also have an increasing body of evidence that shows that not only is COVID not lethal to kids by any significant measure, but also that kids are not a significant vector for the virus.

There is at least partially an element of needing to be seen as “doing something” behind child vax measures and shenanigans with schools

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Things I think should be studied in more detail:

What is the difference in infections, hospitalizations and deaths between states based on level of restrictions? It seems to me that differences aren't the great so are the mask requirements in schools, indoor venues and large outdoor venues really making a difference? Are they an attempt to be seen as "doing something", government control or both?

We know that the vaccine helps to mitigate the effects of the virus and that the vaccine seems to lose efficacy after about 6 months but are we also seriously studying:

• What are the differences for the vaccinated who have already had COVID vs those who haven't?
• How does the results/resistance for the vaccinated compare to the unvaccinated who have already had COVID?

Is the CDC, NIH, etc. studying these things? If yes, what are they finding? If not, why not?

[AZGrizFan]

Agreed on the kids. We also have an increasing body of evidence that shows that not only is COVID not lethal to kids by any significant measure, but also that kids are not a significant vector for the virus.

There is at least partially an element of needing to be seen as “doing something” behind child vax measures and shenanigans with schools

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Things I think should be studied in more detail:

What is the difference in infections, hospitalizations and deaths between states based on level of restrictions? It seems to me that differences aren't the great so are the mask requirements in schools, indoor venues and large outdoor venues really making a difference? Are they an attempt to be seen as "doing something", government control or both?

We know that the vaccine helps to mitigate the effects of the virus and that the vaccine seems to lose efficacy after about 6 months but are we also seriously studying:

• What are the differences for the vaccinated who have already had COVID vs those who haven't?
• How does the results/resistance for the vaccinated compare to the unvaccinated who have already had COVID?

Is the CDC, NIH, etc. studying these things? If yes, what are they finding? If not, why not?

European countries have implemented some of the most draconian lockdown/mask/vaccine requirements on the planet....take a look how they're doing....(hint: not good right now...4th wave in progress)....

[89Hen]

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Mrs89 are thankful we don't have to make this decision. Ours are old enough to make their own.

[GannonFan]

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Mrs89 are thankful we don't have to make this decision. Ours are old enough to make their own.

Mine were easier, were all 12 or older, simple decision to make. But even then the odds of COVID being a problem for them at their age and health was extremely remote. We did it more for their grandparents - hoping the vaccine would make it less likely to get and less likely to transmit to the older folks.

[Gil Dobie]

Agreed on the kids. We also have an increasing body of evidence that shows that not only is COVID not lethal to kids by any significant measure, but also that kids are not a significant vector for the virus.

There is at least partially an element of needing to be seen as “doing something” behind child vax measures and shenanigans with schools

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Things I think should be studied in more detail:

What is the difference in infections, hospitalizations and deaths between states based on level of restrictions? It seems to me that differences aren't the great so are the mask requirements in schools, indoor venues and large outdoor venues really making a difference? Are they an attempt to be seen as "doing something", government control or both?

We know that the vaccine helps to mitigate the effects of the virus and that the vaccine seems to lose efficacy after about 6 months but are we also seriously studying:

• What are the differences for the vaccinated who have already had COVID vs those who haven't?
• How does the results/resistance for the vaccinated compare to the unvaccinated who have already had COVID?

Is the CDC, NIH, etc. studying these things? If yes, what are they finding? If not, why not?

You do realize the vaccine is broken down and cleared naturally from your body in a few days or weeks. It creates the antibody and dissipates. Side effects are pretty much known and treatable, because of the number of people vaccinated, over 7 billion, has provided a great database for studies. It's still a decision, but I'll go with the known versus the extremely low percent unknown.

I posted a video that no one watched. It gave the chance per vaccine/covid possibilities. Best protection was vaccinated and had covid, next was had covid, as some infected people don't have antibodies, then you have vaccinated, and least protected as a group is unvaccinated.

[UNI88]

If I had a young child I don't think I'd get them vaccinated. Their bodies are in the early stages of development and there is no way to be sure of the vaccine's long-term impact. Why roll the dice to mitigate such a small risk?

Things I think should be studied in more detail:

What is the difference in infections, hospitalizations and deaths between states based on level of restrictions? It seems to me that differences aren't the great so are the mask requirements in schools, indoor venues and large outdoor venues really making a difference? Are they an attempt to be seen as "doing something", government control or both?

We know that the vaccine helps to mitigate the effects of the virus and that the vaccine seems to lose efficacy after about 6 months but are we also seriously studying:

• What are the differences for the vaccinated who have already had COVID vs those who haven't?
• How does the results/resistance for the vaccinated compare to the unvaccinated who have already had COVID?

Is the CDC, NIH, etc. studying these things? If yes, what are they finding? If not, why not?

You do realize the vaccine is broken down and cleared naturally from your body in a few days or weeks. It creates the antibody and dissipates. Side effects are pretty much known and treatable, because of the number of people vaccinated, over 7 billion, has provided a great database for studies. It's still a decision, but I'll go with the known versus the extremely low percent unknown.

I posted a video that no one watched. It gave the chance per vaccine/covid possibilities. Best protection was vaccinated and had covid, next was had covid, as some infected people don't have antibodies, then you have vaccinated, and least protected as a group is unvaccinated.

How many of those billions in that great database fore studies are 11 year olds who got it 5 years ago or 16 year olds who got it 10 years ago? None. Are we absolutely, 100% sure that the vaccine creates antibodies and dissipates without any residual impact in young children?