Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

[Smurf1976]

The problem is that because of these relentless lies started, spread and then believed by millions of people delta COVID is now way out of control.

A related problem is that the entire concept of expertise, of institutions, that some person or organisation is an authority on a subject and is beyond reproach, has been seriously damaged over the past 20 or so years.

Military intelligence, financial regulators, building inspections, medical journals, universities and all manner of other things that were once held to be of integrity have become compromised and subject to influences of politics, fashionable opinion, commercial interests and so on.

At the time, almost nothing was known about the origin of the virus so the statement by these scientists seems to have been driven less by good science than by protecting careers and funding. The Lancet has gone to ground but appears to have put political correctness before science.

Suddenly the ‘lab leak’ theory can’t be so readily dismissed: the stifled search for COVID’s Patient Zero

At last the World Health Organisation realises playing nice with China won’t work.

www.smh.com.au

Much the same could be said for all sorts of subjects. There was a time not that long ago, 1990's and prior, when statements from respected authorities on a subject could be taken as factually correct so far as they were referring to the past or present, any debate being limited to the best solution to the problem going forward.

Today however, pretty much any public statement is suspect and needs to be dissected to determine what's fact, what's the actual opinion of who's saying it and what's a product of political, commercial or other influences. Even once highly regarded institutions are at least somewhat questionable today.

I've seen that play out first hand in a very different industry. The public gets fed some absolute nonsense, easily debunked at the time by anyone with access to a computer and the internet, so it's no wonder they're confused as to what's true and what isn't.

With that lack of credible information and confidence in it comes fertile ground for all manner of conspiracy theories.

The situation with COVID vaccination is the inevitable consequence of that breakdown of trust in institutions and the reality that pretty much everything in 2021 is seen through the lens of political tribalism.

 

[qldfrog]

And on that matter, an interesting podcast ,with transcript ,about the lab origin theory,and how it was treated before at long last it became possible to even siggest it
https://quillette.com/2021/06/07/po...19-was-caused-by-a-chinese-lab-leak/#menuopen

I highly value Quilette journalism which offers non woke proper articles outside the usual Guardian ABC crap or Daily Mirror/ Fox News sensationalism.

 

[qldfrog]

I agree on @Smurf1976 view about science (scientists) lack of recent objectivity and so not being trustful.
It is now pretty clear on Covid issues so the frog attitude vs mRNA vaccines..even if the frog has had all vaccines know to man so far due to travels in all jungles and continents..
So antivax me?
On the side note:
I hope people will then take the time to consider who is pushing and what science is behind the supposedly CC, and more specifically,the blind adherence to its CO2 origin story.
Long gone is the time where a Nature article could be trusted.
And we also need to remember how wrong past science was: as a child, i found a pile of science magazines of the 1960s 1970s, and not kid's one, pretty serious papers detailing projects to dig gigantic irrigation channels with A-Bombs...yeap nuke the mountains...
Humility is needed ..

 

[pozindustrial]

A related problem is that the entire concept of expertise, of institutions, that some person or organisation is an authority on a subject and is beyond reproach, has been seriously damaged over the past 20 or so years.

Military intelligence, financial regulators, building inspections, medical journals, universities and all manner of other things that were once held to be of integrity have become compromised and subject to influences of politics, fashionable opinion, commercial interests and so on.

Much the same could be said for all sorts of subjects. There was a time not that long ago, 1990's and prior, when statements from respected authorities on a subject could be taken as factually correct so far as they were referring to the past or present, any debate being limited to the best solution to the problem going forward.

Today however, pretty much any public statement is suspect and needs to be dissected to determine what's fact, what's the actual opinion of who's saying it and what's a product of political, commercial or other influences. Even once highly regarded institutions are at least somewhat questionable today.

I've seen that play out first hand in a very different industry. The public gets fed some absolute nonsense, easily debunked at the time by anyone with access to a computer and the internet, so it's no wonder they're confused as to what's true and what isn't.

With that lack of credible information and confidence in it comes fertile ground for all manner of conspiracy theories.

The situation with COVID vaccination is the inevitable consequence of that breakdown of trust in institutions and the reality that pretty much everything in 2021 is seen through the lens of political tribalism.

Very well said. When I saw the examples of Hydroxy research debunking its ability to control Covid the first thought that came to mind is who spent the money on the research? Why? It is out of patent, cheap and made by many companies. So who is going to fund research unless they wanted a certain outcome that was financially beneficial to their source of income, ie. vaccines?

So on one side you have serious money to be earned by debunking a possible cheap option for treatment of Covid patients so that billions of dollars can be made from a rushed vaccine, while doctors at hospitals who have no financial gains, only saving lives as their motivation were coming out very publicly and letting medical authorities know that by treating patients with hydroxychloriquine + zinc + an antibiotic they massively reduced deaths and hospital stay times. That was not the only cheap drug that was found to work by those treating patients, however a similar pattern of debunking and threats went on for all of them. I believe that is systematic interference all in the name of 'good science' which I firmly believe is manipulated and full of fraudulent activity.

My opinion is that people who trust top institutions, science, governments etc. are the easiest to fool because it is so easy to pay off the people at the head of such bodies.

 

[rederob]

A related problem is that the entire concept of expertise, of institutions, that some person or organisation is an authority on a subject and is beyond reproach, has been seriously damaged over the past 20 or so years.

It is unlikely the proportions of charlatans, liars and power hungry people have changed much over time. For example, snake oil salesmen, devious politicians and organisations fronting for vested interests have been around for generations.
What has changed most is opportunity. All of us reading this have opportunities to influence via a globally connected world and a myriad of communication platforms.
On topic, there is a wealth of data and medical information on covid that a number at ASF refuse to either accept, believe, or understand. This should never be confused with what remains unknown or is preliminary.

The public gets fed some absolute nonsense, easily debunked at the time by anyone with access to a computer and the internet, so it's no wonder they're confused as to what's true and what isn't.

This is seldom the case in Australia unless you are referring to what is being misrepresented (or "spread") by those with vested interests as distinct from what has actually been said or written. It becomes problematic when what can be shown to be incorrect, fabricated or unverifiable is spun as fact.
On topic, it's possible covid leaked from a lab in the USA, or the UK, Japan or China. Most likely from these improbable options was a lab leak from Fort Detrick where gain of function research was recommenced under Trump. My linked article omits this snippet about deaths from an unknown respiratory disease in an aged care facility 50 kilometres away from Fort Detrick! While China has published literally hundreds of scientific papers on its coronavirus research, including with international collaborations, we know nothing about what has been conducted at Fort Detrick. As @Smurf1976 points out as a general comment:

With that lack of credible information and confidence in it comes fertile ground for all manner of conspiracy theories.

While people can join dots to draw a picture, the gaps between them sometimes require unfathomable leaps of logic. If we are prepared to overlook that logic then we have the making of a good conspiracy theory.
The many times debunked ideas posted by @qldfrog and @pozindustrial in this thread are symptomatic of the disease of misrepresentation that proliferates in social media.

 

[pozindustrial]

I used to smoke heavily as a young man in the 60/70s, it was the done thing, fashionable and although I did not know it addictive and highly damaging to my health. The court battles over whether or not it was harmful to health raged until the truth came out officially even though it was a long, drawn-out process. Then for years after we were informed that the companies and their medical witnesses blatantly lied in court under oath because of money and prestige behind it. It took a long time to sink in because most bosses and executives smoked, most doctors and nurses smoked, most friends smoked, most sports were sponsored by tobacco companies etc. In my observation the most opinionated were the last to accept the risks citing all kinds of data for their decisions. Same now with vaccines.

The Cigarette Controversy

This study examines the history of the cigarette controversy using the tobacco documents as a roadmap to explore the following four questions: ( a ) What did tobacco companies know about the health risks of smoking and when did they know it? ( b ) What evidence is there that tobacco companies...

cebp.aacrjournals.org

Vaccine companies lie too about the benefits compared to risks. They have massive marketing ability, can influence medical authorities at the top levels, pay for questionable research and have billions to lose each year if they do not keep it up. Then you have the '12' who keep interviewing and quoting scientists, virologists, doctors and many more people who do not have the power and a lot to personally lose who want people to know some of the truths that conflict with the official information.

This is not an antivaxxer campaign as the provaxxers have labelled it, it is simply listening to other sides of a strongly one-sided narrative and making a personal judgement call.

 

[rederob]

Vaccine companies lie too about the benefits compared to risks.

Laws in most western nations preclude this.

They have massive marketing ability, can influence medical authorities at the top levels, pay for questionable research and have billions to lose each year if they do not keep it up.

So what? If companies make false representations they will be prosecuted - plain and simple.

Then you have the '12' who keep interviewing and quoting scientists, virologists, doctors and many more people who do not have the power and a lot to personally lose who want people to know some of the truths that conflict with the official information.

Nope. What we see is how social media is used by the unscrupulous to misrepresent science. If you cannot work out where the truth lies then you belong to the flat earthers.

This is not an antivaxxer campaign as the provaxxers have labelled it, it is simply listening to other sides of a strongly one-sided narrative and making a personal judgement call.

People using terminology such as "provaxxers" are active deniers of science. There is no credible science suggesting approved vaccinations are more dangerous than the disease.

 

[bellenuit]

When I saw the examples of Hydroxy research debunking its ability to control Covid the first thought that came to mind is who spent the money on the research? Why?

The Why can be obvious without being conspiratorial. If the drug is being promoted as an antidote/cure, then it better work. If not COVID will just continue to spread and we will be worse off if an effective drug is being substituted for something that is ineffective.

 

[pozindustrial]

The Why can be obvious without being conspiratorial. If the drug is being promoted as an antidote/cure, then it better work. If not COVID will just continue to spread and we will be worse off if an effective drug is being substituted for something that is ineffective.

I think you are ignoring the fact that it was only promoted because it was found to be effective

 

[cynic]

In order to gain FDA authorisation, for emergency use, one of the criteria, that must be met, is that there be "no adequate, approved and available alternatives."

One doesn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to, connect the dots, and see the likely reason, for alternative treatments being so readily, and prejudicially, dismissed.

 

[pozindustrial]

And the campaign to dismiss was MASSIVE from serious threats to individual doctors, those who prescribed (even though they had done so for 50 years previously), those pharmacists that filled the prescriptions, facebook for censoring their clinical results sharing, wikipedia for claiming falsely that persons and organisations involved were some kind of evil conspiracy, google for denying them proper search engine optimisation etc.

That rang alarm bells for me. Why censor the sharing of something that was proving effective for the patients and management of Covid and why promote the lie that there was no treatment that worked and that a vaccine was the only answer. Blind Freddie could see what was happening there.

Regarding trials proving that Hydroxychloroquine did not work, one has to consider how it was conducted. From my recollection hospitals who used it gave it to their staff and the rate of staff infection dropped dramatically, they gave it to all patients with symptoms as soon as they presented and they had worked out what frequency, dose and combination to use from actual use on actual patients.

Trials can be done with different dosages, at different times during infection and may look at different criteria to determine if it worked. The doctors who were using it used the measure of how much the patient improved!

 

[rederob]

I think you are ignoring the fact that it was only promoted because it was found to be effective

You need to be able to show your claims are credible.
Competent authorities have reviewed your claim and do not agree, eg:

"FDA has determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses under the EUA and that the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the formerly authorized uses."​

 

[rederob]

In order to gain FDA authorisation, for emergency use, one of the criteria, that must be met, is that there be "no adequate, approved and available alternatives."

One doesn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to, connect the dots, and see the likely reason, for alternative treatments being so readily, and prejudicially, dismissed.

There is no logic to that claim.
Dozens of treatment regimes have been evaluated and continue to be revisited under scientific principles where there is uncertainty.
The research on hydroxychloroquine was such a case.
Repurposing of existing drugs is never ruled out, but there needs to be reasonable evidence of successful outcomes. Given the millions of people hospitalised to date, and the continued spread of covid, it beggars belief there is some international conspiracy against using the best available treatments.

 

[moXJO]

remdesivir is used but the hydroxy was dropped in Australia

 

[moXJO]

I think they were using the drugs with zinc or vit d in other countries?

I'm not sure if the studies included that. But there was a reason it was used together that sounded plausible (bugger if I can remember).

 

[cynic]

There is no logic to that claim....

Well considering your personally preferred definitions of "logic","evaluate","scientific","certainty","reasonable", and "evidence", your response is both typical and unsurprising.

 

[pozindustrial]

I think they were using the drugs with zinc or vit d in other countries?

I'm not sure if the studies included that. But there was a reason it was used together that sounded plausible (bugger if I can remember).

What I read was that zinc did the job, but it is difficult to get the zinc into a cell which hydroxy enabled. They also included an antibiotic just in case of other infection.

ivermectin appears to be the drug of choice now for excellent treatment but I am unsure of where because it has been demonised too.

There is a gigantic effort to stop any successful treatment. Normally the opposite would happen, but big business has taken over very convincingly for some.

 

[rederob]

Well considering your personally preferred definitions of "logic","evaluate","scientific","certainty","reasonable", and "evidence", your response is both typical and unsurprising.

You are welcome to your opinions, but if you want to be credible then you need to say things which are substantive.
The "dots" you suggested be joined turn the Rhodes Scholar into a fool.

 

[moXJO]

From the healthcare industries thinking. Preventative is better than treatment. If the hospital is flooded by people needing treatment, it's still a greater cost on a few levels then vaccination.

You then have other operations put off and potentially putting lives at risk down to no room to fit them in.

Vaccination is simply the lowest cost solution from an economic and health perspective. I'm not fully sold on vaccination. But I think I'm due to get the pfizer in a few days. Was thinking of waiting as mixing the vaxes seems to give better results. I ain't going for a third

 

[moXJO]

It's interesting that 60% of covid hospitalisations of the over 60s in Israel were vaccinated. It did greatly reduce the seriousness of the symptoms with only 1 in ICU. Figures were called into question. But it seems like they are right.

But this is still going to throw a spanner in the works. 90% (over 60s) were vaccinated. So people are still getting sick and transmission hasn't stopped. How is our media and twitter wanks going to cope?
And will this mean lockdowns will stay?