Bruddah IZ
DA
You're a bit late to the party. 'Bout 18 months.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
I understand the immune system and quite a bit more, it appears you are deflecting due to lack of understanding.
I have no intention in any engagement as you’ve implied. You know what I put forth, and an honest response would
suite you well.
Furthermore you have once again circumvented the accountability issue I put forth. Why will you and others who
tout the “ jab “ not address this glaring problem that is building.
That is Science and Data.
Idiot.
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
Your hostility and ignorance will not sway the truth.
No doubt.
Anyone coming to @thirteenknots's defense? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? .....crickets....
Let me get some popcorn. I want to see who can contort their argumentative skills/styles in order to be inclusive to folks like this.
I would like to know what name he used before he was banned the last time.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Jay Bhattacharya on Twitter:
Public health has earned the distrust of minority communities by promoting ideas that have harmed minorities differentially like “essential/non-essential”, lockdown, zoom for public school kids, vax passports,… Experts who argued for these terrible ideas should be ashamed.
GoldenGate
GOLD
I'll take a stab at it.
Science says natural immunity works great for all of those for whom it works. There is therefore no need to wear a mask or get vaccinated because 100% of those people who do not die or suffer long term consequences from Covid will not die or suffer long term consequences from Covid.
We have had 18 months to learn how to treat Covid and limit its transmission, and have implemented a way to protect ourselves from dying with 99.99999999% success if we get it. So make sure to eat horse paste, not wear masks or socially distance under any circumstances, and absolutely, positively do not get vaccinated. The proof is states like MS, LA, AZ, TX and FL, which have had 18 months to learn and have used that information very wisely. Bigly in fact.
And by the way, it's also all a hoax. Everyone is really just dying in motorcycle accidents and from gunshot wounds when they aren't voting fraudulently in elections. But remember the horse paste just in case. You should use your freedom to put anything you want in your body - other than vaccines of course.
Bruddah IZ
DA
More from Jay Bhattacharya on Twitter:
It is irrational and cruel to permit the vaxxed to have liberty while forcing recovered COVID patients with better immunity — often poor, minority, and working-class “essentials” — to the shadows of society.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
It's therapeutic when like-minded trolls talk to each other (or themselves). It's as close to a real friend as they have.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Awwww, you're mad your maker mandated immune systems. Poor baby.
What is this “horse paste” you keep referring to?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Tell me how smart you people are again. Lol!
The Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
SIGN THE DECLARATION
Co-signers
Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners
Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA
Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany
Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany
Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany
Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany
Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England
Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA
Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Bruddah IZ
DA
It seals off the plume from your mask at NFL games and the Emmys.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Bruddah IZ
DA
I have noticed a growing tendency toward the public expression of a particular kind of envy, an angry fear that someone, somewhere might be getting an undeserved benefit. Those who want to make policy based on this view, of course, would deny my claim that the motivation is envy, and instead would argue for “social justice” as the description. Regardless, the impulse is pernicious, seeking to deny unearned benefits to others even at a cost to oneself. I propose to dub this impulse “Nutzenschmerz,” or the indignant outrage over someone getting to use something I don’t have.
The initial distribution of the (eagerly awaited, by many) Covid-19 vaccines, especially in states where “social justice” is apotheosized, was a carnival of Nutzenschmerz. There were paroxysms of anger over the idea that someone might be jumping the queue, getting a vaccine they didn’t deserve; some claimed that “justice” should be the only consideration in deciding who got the vaccine.
The mania for “justice” reached such extreme levels that on December 28, 2020 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an order imposing strict penalties—with fines up to $1 million per offense—for any injustice in the dispensation of vaccines. Since the criteria for “justice” were vague, and in fact contradictory, this meant that a large number of perfectly safe doses of the vaccine were intentionally thrown away in the first month, rather than give anyone an undeserved benefit. Cuomo, with the enthusiastic support of the legislature at the time, went so far as to threaten to revoke the medical license of any health care worker who gave a vaccine to anyone not in the priority list, even if the alternative was literally to throw the vaccine away because it spoiled quickly after being opened.
Liz Wolfe (in Reason magazine) illustrates the problem of being primarily concerned, to the exclusion of all other factors, with denying others any undeserved benefit. That is the essence of my concept of Nutzenschmerz.
The state is wrong to put these medical workers in a horrifying ethical bind where they must choose between violating the governor’s rules to help save people’s lives, or throwing scarce resources out at a time when we’re desperately attempting to reach herd immunity and avoid higher death tolls. Especially since vaccinating more people, whoever they are, is a Pareto improvement—something that would benefit at least one person (in this case, more than that, if vaccines reduce transmission too) while harming none. (1/8/21; emphasis added)
The initial distribution of the (eagerly awaited, by many) Covid-19 vaccines, especially in states where “social justice” is apotheosized, was a carnival of Nutzenschmerz. There were paroxysms of anger over the idea that someone might be jumping the queue, getting a vaccine they didn’t deserve; some claimed that “justice” should be the only consideration in deciding who got the vaccine.
The mania for “justice” reached such extreme levels that on December 28, 2020 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an order imposing strict penalties—with fines up to $1 million per offense—for any injustice in the dispensation of vaccines. Since the criteria for “justice” were vague, and in fact contradictory, this meant that a large number of perfectly safe doses of the vaccine were intentionally thrown away in the first month, rather than give anyone an undeserved benefit. Cuomo, with the enthusiastic support of the legislature at the time, went so far as to threaten to revoke the medical license of any health care worker who gave a vaccine to anyone not in the priority list, even if the alternative was literally to throw the vaccine away because it spoiled quickly after being opened.
Liz Wolfe (in Reason magazine) illustrates the problem of being primarily concerned, to the exclusion of all other factors, with denying others any undeserved benefit. That is the essence of my concept of Nutzenschmerz.
The state is wrong to put these medical workers in a horrifying ethical bind where they must choose between violating the governor’s rules to help save people’s lives, or throwing scarce resources out at a time when we’re desperately attempting to reach herd immunity and avoid higher death tolls. Especially since vaccinating more people, whoever they are, is a Pareto improvement—something that would benefit at least one person (in this case, more than that, if vaccines reduce transmission too) while harming none. (1/8/21; emphasis added)
Bruddah IZ
DA
This statement of the problem reveals a gap between the way many economists think of the problem, and how politicians think of it. It is generally assumed, in blackboard economics, that a strong Pareto improvement—everyone is better off, and no one is worse off—is always unobjectionable. More importantly, it is simply assumed that even a weak Pareto improvement—at least one person is better off, and no one is worse off—is always easily implemented as public policy in a democracy. It’s actually the definition of “efficiency,” and efficiency is the goal of public policy.
But that’s clearly not true. A weak Pareto improvement, say giving any available person a vaccine dose if that dose would otherwise be thrown away, is precisely what many people object to. The idea that a benefit is undeserved implies that it should not be awarded, even if the alternative is literally dumping the benefit down the sink. The idea that public policy should be concerned first and foremost with preventing those undeserved harms, and confiscating unearned benefits from others, is the central premise of the new rendering of social justice and political responsibility. Nutzenschmerz is the denial of weak Pareto improvements to all members of the society, based on the insistence on a fanatically strict notion of desert. Any undeserved benefit is unjust; any cost incurred in correcting injustice is justified by the emotional group-think of Nutzenschmerz.
GoldenGate
GOLD
You should add more color to your posts. I don't think this adequately conveys the importance of what you are saying to the other schizophrenics.
Multi Sport
DA
Deflection much? Hopefully you didn't strain anything in the process...