corona? :(

[dijiTurk]

@eddiemccandless Of course I wouldn't want to have "detailed" discussions because of my language barrier. I have already been just about sharing news about the coronavirus that could be simple and meaningful.

Within the scope of its simple essence and freedom of expression, there is no drawback - as far as I can see - to share news from known news sites about corona. Therefore, I will continue to share related news. Also, if you see inaccuracies in the news that go beyond freedom of expression (which I'm not good at to see), it's your natural right to criticize. I just..wont give further comments here about news, because i cant see it clearly & i have some limits; i only focus on basic corona-related news.


@MadVader Your respond seems non-cordial, and not meanful for the subject at all. Sorry.

 

[Mad Vader]

@MadVader Your respond seems non-cordial, and not meanful for the subject at all. Sorry.

Okay, let's try cordial: please stop spamming tabloid news here.
Disinformation and conspiracy theories can kill people, so don't expect cordial treatment when you do harm, even if it's out of ignorance. Expect to be treated accordingly.

 

[Mad Vader]

Interesting policy on Covid bull**** from another forum (rpg.net):

Regarding the COV-19 virus and its effects:

Things are frustrating, and confusing, and scary. People dream up conspiracy theories to help make sense of things. They're not helpful, though, and only serve to make the world more confusing and scarier.

We're not going to have that here. If there's new information to be shared, share it, but cite your information to a reputable source. And we swear to God, if anyone comes in here and starts spouting off QAnon bull**** about COVID-19 or literally anything else, you are going to get permabanned so thoroughly that your grandchildren won't be allowed to post here.

Just saying.

 

[dijiTurk]

It's not good to permban ppl that think about world news, especially on health subjects.

• The MHRA’s scientific review of UK reports of extremely rare and unlikely to occur specific blood clots with lowered platelets has concluded that the evidence of a link with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is stronger but more work is still needed.

MHRA issues new advice, concluding a possible link between COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and extremely rare, unlikely to occur blood clots

The benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh any risks but the MHRA advises careful consideration be given to people who are at higher risk of specific types of blood clots because of their medical condition.

www.gov.uk

UK health regulator may restrict AstraZeneca shot for younger people, Channel 4 says

Britain's health regulator is considering a proposal to restrict the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in younger people over concerns about very rare blood clots, Channel 4 News reported on Monday.

www.reuters.com

Report claims watchdog looking into use of AstraZeneca jab for under-30s

Channel 4 News cites sources saying issue being considered, but regulator says no decision made

www.theguardian.com

 

[eddiemccandless]

Concerns about AstraZeneca are not really on the same level as qAnonsense. And I do appreciate the improvement on the quality of your sources!

 

[Mad Vader]

Concerns about AstraZeneca are not really on the same level as qAnonsense.

Agreed, and in addition, those rpg.net mods are a bit of a leftist Gestapo permabanning people who would have clean records here. So, not a good example of moderation.

However, concerns about AstraZeneca are basically irrational fears from vaccines. There's a bigger probability you'll win big on a lottery than that you'll get clotting from AZ. I'm sure there's a casual link, but the issue is simply almost irrelevant. Yet, the media and the politicians are reflecting those fears back at the population, while the experts tear their hair.
Fear is the mind-killer.

 

[Zombie Warrior]

Agreed, and in addition, those rpg.net mods are a bit of a leftist Gestapo permabanning people who would have clean records here. So, not a good example of moderation.

Honestly, the gestapo, politically aligned to a side on the spectrum or not, is a bit everywhere nowadays. They should clone the TaleWorlds forum moderators and put those in charge of other communities haha

Vaccines will always generate some fears. However those fears are exacerbated in these times due to the pandemic scale of the disease we're trying to prevent. Also those clot stories are bad news, most people fear death and will thus try to avoid it even where it is unlikely to happen. This is so severe than over here people for whose turn it is to get their shot refuse to receive the vaccine if it's astra zeneca... which will just make the third wave bigger with all those people who are waiting for more doses of moderna or Pfizer.

Speaking of vaccines, have you guys heard? Chile has agreeably surprised everyone by having one of the best vaccination rates. Good job Chile, you've done a better job than many countries which have much bigger budgets for healthcare! Now, if you'll excuse me I have a plane and a shot to catch

 

[kurczak]

Interesting policy on Covid bull**** from another forum (rpg.net):

Just saying.

Unlike corona-skepticism, backseat moderation is against forum rules

 

[eddiemccandless]

I think that the reason people are more scared of side effects from vaccines is a psychological bias associated with actively getting the vaccine. As in, let's say that you have an 18% chance of catching the virus, and a 2% chance of dying from it if you catch it. That is a 0.36% chance of death. And let's say that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes clots in 1 patient in each million (0.0001% chance of death or at least a serious condition). People should be more scared of the virus since the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of taking the vaccine, however you think to yourself "yeah but I am not going to catch the virus". On the other hand if you take the vaccine you are actively exposing yourself to the 1 in a million chance. It is not rational, but I do think that people are more scared of exposing themselves to a low, low risk than being subject to another one over which they don't have active control.

And by the way, those are not random numbers. I obtained them from the number of people living in Europe, total number of cases so far and number of deaths. Definitely a simplistic model but it gives the idea I think.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

I think that the reason people are more scared of side effects from vaccines is a psychological bias associated with actively getting the vaccine. As in, let's say that you have an 18% chance of catching the virus, and a 2% chance of dying from it if you catch it. That is a 0.36% chance of death. And let's say that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes clots in 1 patient in each million (0.0001% chance of death or at least a serious condition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Loss aversion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thought it was cool how you pretty much identified those 2 biases.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Unlike corona-skepticism, backseat moderation is against forum rules

Ban, IMO.

 

[eddiemccandless]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Loss aversion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thought it was cool how you pretty much identified those 2 biases.

That's probably because I read about them at some point in the past and while I forgot that I did, it stayed semi buried in the recesses of my brain ?

 

[kurczak]

I think that the reason people are more scared of side effects from vaccines is a psychological bias associated with actively getting the vaccine. As in, let's say that you have an 18% chance of catching the virus, and a 2% chance of dying from it if you catch it. That is a 0.36% chance of death. And let's say that the AstraZeneca vaccine causes clots in 1 patient in each million (0.0001% chance of death or at least a serious condition). People should be more scared of the virus since the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of taking the vaccine, however you think to yourself "yeah but I am not going to catch the virus". On the other hand if you take the vaccine you are actively exposing yourself to the 1 in a million chance. It is not rational, but I do think that people are more scared of exposing themselves to a low, low risk than being subject to another one over which they don't have active control.

And by the way, those are not random numbers. I obtained them from the number of people living in Europe, total number of cases so far and number of deaths. Definitely a simplistic model but it gives the idea I think.

The 2% only applies to the general population. If you're not ancient, fat, diabetic or asthmatic etc the death probability drops down massively. The probability of dying from the vaccine on the spot is probably still lower though....but....

I am not rushing to get vaccinated, because who the **** knows what it really does to you. Who knows what the regular vaccines that about everyone has, like MMR, really do in the long run. MMR has been around since like the 70s. Has anyone even bothered to do really long studies and if so, on who? Who's the control group when pretty much everyone everyone got the vaccine? I'm not saying vaccines do cause this or that, but I'm asking how do we really know they don't. Until then I'm not going to go out of my way to inject some chimp RNA or whatever over like one in a million odds corona kills me. Although we should return to monke, so maybe it's not such a bad idea

If you're at high risk, then go ahead, but I'm not. Besides, you have to die eventuallyanyway, but you don't have to become an infertile autist

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I am not rushing to get vaccinated, because who the **** knows what it really does to you. Who knows what the regular vaccines that about everyone has, like MMR, really do in the long run. MMR has been around since like the 70s. Has anyone even bothered to do really long studies and if so, on who? Who's the control group when pretty much everyone everyone got the vaccine? I'm not saying vaccines do cause this or that, but I'm asking how do we really know they don't.

You could apply this logic to like, every single thing invented in the last 100 years. Be a full on Kaczynskite if you want, but selectively applying it to vaccines when your entire life is built on repeated exposure to layers upon layers of actually proven damaging technology is nuts.

 

[Mad Vader]

The 2% only applies to the general population. If you're not ancient, fat, diabetic or asthmatic etc the death probability drops down massively. The probability of dying from the vaccine on the spot is probably still lower though....but....

For many people, it's not the dying that's the problem, but damage to organs, which is not funny at all. The long-term consequences can be brutal.
The percentage of infected people ending up in hospital and facing these consequences is much higher than your "it's just a flu" death rate.

I am not rushing to get vaccinated, because who the **** knows what it really does to you. Who knows what the regular vaccines that about everyone has, like MMR, really do in the long run. MMR has been around since like the 70s. Has anyone even bothered to do really long studies and if so, on who? Who's the control group when pretty much everyone everyone got the vaccine? I'm not saying vaccines do cause this or that, but I'm asking how do we really know they don't.

There are at least two control groups for MMR: people born before 1957 who are presumably naturally immune because everyone had these diseases back then, and people allergic to vaccine components.
I'm not saying your argument is a lazy speculation of the vaccine scaremonger variety, but I'm asking why didn't you check this yourself.

If you're at high risk, then go ahead, but I'm not. Besides, you have to die eventuallyanyway, but you don't have to become an infertile autist

That's like the worst argument ever and it's being made by people who think that death is other people's problem. Hopefully vaccinated people will shield you from your poor decision making.

 

[kurczak]

You could apply this logic to like, every single thing invented in the last 100 years. Be a full on Kaczynskite if you want, but selectively applying it to vaccines when your entire life is built on repeated exposure to layers upon layers of actually proven damaging technology is nuts.

I can and I do Your argument sounds to me like the people who don't recycle because "I read a study that 95% of waste is produced by industrial and commercial entities, so it doesn't really matter what households, let alone mere one, do."

As Kaczynski learned in his cabin you can't check out of it all. But some things you can choose and it doesn't make sense to just blindly accept everything because we're supposedly already ****ed anyway. The covid vaccine is (soon going to be) de facto mandatory anyway, so I'll probably get it like I got all the other ones.

For many people, it's not the dying that's the problem, but damage to organs, which is not funny at all. The long-term consequences can be brutal.
The percentage of infected people ending up in hospital and facing these consequences is much higher than your "it's just a flu" death rate.

I'm not saying it's just a flu. I'm saying the risk is tiny for large parts of the population. You people make fun of "it's just a flu", but you act like "it's ****ing ebola" yourself.

There are at least two control groups for MMR: people born before 1957 who are presumably naturally immune because everyone had these diseases back then, and people allergic to vaccine components.

Yes and we do have much more cancer, autism and infertility than that generation did. Coincidence? I'm sure. But the point is they're not comparable, because they are different generation. The allergic ones I guess could work, but...

I'm not saying your argument is a lazy speculation of the vaccine scaremonger variety, but I'm asking why didn't you check this yourself.

...so, the kind of long term studies I'm talking about would barely be wrapping up by now. Yet they rolled them out after like a couple years of some testing, that just rule out you don't instantly die. And the ones for covid were tested for like what a year tops? It's not scaremongering, it's just the precautionary principle applied to this situation. Some diseases are bad enough it makes sense to take the vaccine even if it isn't really properly tested. This doesn't seem like it - for people without the risk factors.

That's like the worst argument ever and it's being made by people who think that death is other people's problem. Hopefully vaccinated people will shield you from your poor decision making.

Wasn't that serious one, thought it was clear.

 

[Adorno]

Who knows what the regular vaccines that about everyone has, like MMR, really do in the long run.

What we know is that thousands of people (many children) died - globally - during measles outbreaks.
They still do in areas without proper vaccination programs. The cost-benefit analysis is pretty clear.
We have many other explanations for cancer and infertility (remember we don't actually know much about infertility back in the day).
Autism was put on a spectrum in the 1990's, meaning this highly subjective diagnosis can easily be given to a lot of people. Besides, research has shown no link between the two.
Don't be drab, get your jab.

 

[eddiemccandless]

The 2% only applies to the general population. If you're not ancient, fat, diabetic or asthmatic etc the death probability drops down massively. The probability of dying from the vaccine on the spot is probably still lower though....but....

I am not rushing to get vaccinated, because who the **** knows what it really does to you. Who knows what the regular vaccines that about everyone has, like MMR, really do in the long run. MMR has been around since like the 70s. Has anyone even bothered to do really long studies and if so, on who? Who's the control group when pretty much everyone everyone got the vaccine? I'm not saying vaccines do cause this or that, but I'm asking how do we really know they don't. Until then I'm not going to go out of my way to inject some chimp RNA or whatever over like one in a million odds corona kills me. Although we should return to monke, so maybe it's not such a bad idea

If you're at high risk, then go ahead, but I'm not. Besides, you have to die eventuallyanyway, but you don't have to become an infertile autist

I mean... Who knows what drinking water does to you, long term? Nobody studied that either. Oxygen is toxic. You actually can get oxygen poisoning from inhaling too much of it. And yet we breathe it every day, and long term consequences are... Death.

It just seems like a very irrational way of thinking to me, but to each their own I guess. Like a few months ago I would probably have argued ad nauseam over this because by not vaccinating you actually putting others in danger, but to be honest I am out of steam. I got my first shot today myself so I guess that is what I can do.

Edit: fun fact, there actually are long term studies for MMR vaccine.

Long-term Immunogenicity of Measles Vaccine: An Italian Retrospective Cohort Study

AbstractBackground. Levels of antibodies induced by the measles virus–containing vaccine have been shown to decline over time, but there is no formal recom

academic.oup.com

FAQ: Children's Vaccines

WebMD provides answers to common questions about children's vaccines, including when they should be given and possible side effects.

www.webmd.com

All evidence points to vaccines being safe. Just like all evidence points to my cat being safe for me to have around while I sleep, although she definitely could kill me in my sleep and I can see in her eyes that she's thinking about it every now and then

Also sounds like oxidation is not actually what causes aging, but you get what I mean (it does do damage to your body though!)

The Free Radical Theory of Aging Is Dead. Long Live the Damage Theory!

The free radical theory of aging posits that aging is caused by accumulation of damage inflicted by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Although this concept has been very useful in defining the contribution of oxidative damage to the aging process, an increasing ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Edit 2: covid *is* worse than Ebola. It killed way more people than Ebola did. The low mortality paired with a high transmissibility and asymptomatic spread makes it a much more effective killer on a large scale.

Autism was put on a spectrum in the 1990's, meaning this highly subjective diagnosis can easily be given to a lot of people. Besides, research has shown no link between the two.

Not to mention the fact that the "research" that even suggested a relationship was proven to be fake. That by itself should tell people everything they need to know about the notion that vaccines cause autism.

....dammit I am arguing now, I fell for it again....

 

[JabdiMelborn]

Edit 2: covid *is* worse than Ebola. It killed way more people than Ebola did. The low mortality paired with a high transmissibility and asymptomatic spread makes it a much more effective killer on a large scale.

...Have you any idea what a pandemic Ebola could mean...?
...probably the closest men disease to plague...

 

[kurczak]

I mean... Who knows what drinking water does to you, long term? Nobody studied that either. Oxygen is toxic. You actually can get oxygen poisoning from inhaling too much of it. And yet we breathe every day, and long term consequences are... Death.

Woah. How about that one when people wanted to ban water when they told them dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical. People are so dumb, not like me with my smarts and science.

And I thought I had no sense of nuance. I just know my inner contrarian is for once onto something when people get so jittery.

Obviously, you will die for sure without water or air. It has been tested thoroughly. Too much oxygen can indeed kill you. And I would be quite concerned if someone came up with the idea that we now have either to inhale ozone and if you even wonder for a second if it's really necessary, you're pretty much a grandma-killing bigot.

It just seems like a very irrational way of thinking to me, but to each their own I guess. Like a few months ago I would probably have argued ad nauseam over this because by not vaccinating you actually putting others in danger, but to be honest I am out of steam. I got my first shot today myself so I guess that is what I can do.

Edit: fun fact, there actually are long term studies for MMR vaccine.

Long-term Immunogenicity of Measles Vaccine: An Italian Retrospective Cohort Study

AbstractBackground. Levels of antibodies induced by the measles virus–containing vaccine have been shown to decline over time, but there is no formal recom

academic.oup.com

FAQ: Children's Vaccines

WebMD provides answers to common questions about children's vaccines, including when they should be given and possible side effects.

www.webmd.com

All evidence points to vaccines being safe. Just like all evidence points to my cat being safe for me to have around while I sleep, although she definitely could kill me in my sleep and I can see in her eyes that she's thinking about it every now and then

As above, it's great that a 12 year study done in early 2000s found out something that's been used since the 70s is safe. I'm not claiming that the MMR vaccines does something or that the corona one does it. I have no idea. It's quite likely they are both safe. It's about the principle.

The putting others at risk is just emotional blackmail. If you're at risk, get vaccinated yourself if you want to, wear a respirator if you want to, or make any adjustments in your life you see fit. I think we've made enough sacrifice for them over the past year. Yeah, statistically, I put people at risk of every time I drive a car. I could eliminate the risk by never driving again and walking everywhere, but I'm just not going to.