• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Covid-19 Who's planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine? (Poll)

Are you planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

  • Yes, as soon as possible

  • Probably but I'm going to wait a while first and see how others tolerate it

  • Probably not but maybe

  • No, never


Results are only viewable after voting.

chinup

Moderator: H&R
Staff member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
5,298
Location
Greatest city on Earth
would you be prepared to walk away if you realized what I'd said was true? I doubt it.
actually yes, i walked away from my PhD topic after completion because i had lost hope in its relevance to real life.

until last year i worked in academia, which is not an industry and creates knowledge that is available, often for free (and publishers paywalls should not exist imo), for all humanity to use. its not for profit.

post links to the papers you think are bullshit and explain which bit you think is bullshit and why, and i will gladly, where i am able, correct your understanding.

the 'viruses don't exist but are actually exosomes' theory is not novel, you did not come up with it, i've seen it before and have seen no strong evidence. have you got a single paper from a reputable journal to back you up?

to work in science you need to be capable of novel thought and assessing evidence, and you have to be constantly open to being wrong (beause you know the chance of being correct is usually vanishingly small and the sooner you find where you're wrong, the lest time you waste being wrong), this requires you to be far more open minded than finding some theory on the internet then parroting it on a forum.
 

JessFR

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,325
Location
just this side of the edge.
Gotta love the logic of "we can't trust experts, they're biased by the fact they're so closely involved to the subject matter".

Remember the only trustworthy opinions on scientific questions are those held by people who don't know shit about the topic they're arguing about.
 

JessFR

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,325
Location
just this side of the edge.
Apparently in order to have an open mind, it is necessary to have come to the same conclusions as you. Got it

Open mind is code, it means you have to be willing to waste your time endlessly listening to the same stupid shit over and over again just in case this time it might have a half a grain of truth to it.

If you aren't willing to comply with being drowned in youtube video bullshit, it means you're close minded.

Even worse is if you're an expect in the field, that means you're biased and can't be trusted.
 

negrogesic

Moderator: BDD, OD
Staff member
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,132
Location
Negronesia
For a disease with a 99.9% recovery rate, why would you even consider taking a vaccination in the first place? That fact alone should kill the argument dead in the water.

This is pretty naive. As if there are only two outcomes: life or death. COVID-19 is associated with organ damage (even seen in some who weren't particularly symptomatic). Your assertion that 999 out of a 1000 people walk away from this unscathed is laughable.

By this math, since around 450,000 Americans have died so far, then 450 million Americans have contracted it. But I don't think there are 450 million people in the US 🤔

Of course, you don't think 450,000 Americans died from COVID-19 as you don't believe it is detectable in the blood.
 
Last edited:

Bagseed

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
3,758
Location
flat spacetime
This is pretty naive. As if there are only two outcomes: life or death. COVID-19 is associated with organ damage (even seen in some who weren't particularly symptomatic). Your assertion that 999 out of a 1000 people walk away from this unscathed is laughable.
my mother works in radiology, and they see lung damage in some people who didn't experience severe illness from covid. so yeah, seems to be nasty.
 

JessFR

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,325
Location
just this side of the edge.
my mother works in radiology, and they see lung damage in some people who didn't experience severe illness from covid. so yeah, seems to be nasty.

Yea but nothing seen by radiology is seen directly by the unaided eye, therefore nothing it shows you really exists. :p

If you believe the lungs are damaged just because medical scans show the lungs are damaged that just shows how brainwashed you are! :D
 
Last edited:

novaveritas

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
994
Of course, you don't think 450,000 Americans died from COVID-19 as you don't believe it is detectable in the blood.

Explain some more about this detectable in the blood thing? Is this how they have identified 450k deaths?
 

negrogesic

Moderator: BDD, OD
Staff member
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,132
Location
Negronesia
Explain some more about this detectable in the blood thing? Is this how they have identified 450k deaths?

Well detectable in bodily fluids I should have said (he was referring to HIV serological testing being spurious so i was continuing in that same vein -- no pun intended).
 

Xorkoth

🎨 ARTministrator 🎨
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
53,340
Location
In the mountains
If someone has a heart attack while sick with covid, because they had heart problems and they would have died 5 years later anyway, they still died because of covid complications. Every single person will eventually die, if covid is the thing that causes you to succumb to some underlying weakness in your health, that still counts, because without covid, you would have still had more lifetime left.
 

JessFR

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,325
Location
just this side of the edge.
Another question to ask: are they dead with or because of Covid?

It's probably not a worthwhile question. The totals aren't and never have been claimed to be an exact count of everyone who's died of covid. What they are is a ballpark figure. One that's largely been confirmed by the excess death numbers.
 

LandsUnknown

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
1,000
Location
United States
I'll get it, not because I want to or necessarily think it's 100% safe or side effect free. I have asthma, which is quite persistent at times. I also have another medical issue, which unfortunately is supposedly associated with several times the risk of being hospitalized?!?!?!?!? Though, I'm only 28 and fairly healthy overall aside from these issues that don't really affect my day to day life. Still, I asked on a telemedicine site how bad it would likely be for me if I were to get the virus, given the medical issues I have. Basically, the answer was something along the lines of I don't know. That it's not really possible to predict predict and that it could be nothing/extremely minor, very serious, or anything in between basically. But they seemed to feel like it would be a somewhat concerning situation given the medical conditions.

After looking at other questions that were answered by the doctors on the site, for a lot of people who were wondering how risky the virus was to them personally, they basically said that the risk was minimal, to still be careful to not spread it, etc. So, it wasn't just what they say to everybody or anything. So, yeah I'll definitely get it as soon as it's my turn, because I'm thinking getting the vaccine would be less dangerous than getting the virus. Not as if that's really saying much though. Though, if I did not have any sort of underlying condition, I would definitely refuse this rushed vaccine that has only been around for a few months.
 
Last edited:

novaveritas

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
994
It's probably not a worthwhile question. The totals aren't and never have been claimed to be an exact count of everyone who's died of covid. What they are is a ballpark figure. One that's largely been confirmed by the excess death numbers.

It is absolutely a worthwhile question, because unless you look at it you don't know how much excess death was caused by covid and how much is caused by the various responses to covid. Likewise it is incredibly important to know whether someone died of covid or with covid (whether it was a positive test around at the time of death).

Without a reasonable estimate or answer to those questions you have no foundation to work on and no chance of making rational choices.

This is very important:
If you reduce healthcare provision and cripple the healthcare system to prevent 'covid' overwhelming the healthcare system, then you have just severely damaged the healthcare system in order to avoid further damaging the healthcare system. You have done exactly the thing you wanted to avoid.

It is a reasonable hypothesis that,
Given there are roughly 3 million deaths per year in USA, a focus on covid to the detriment of other equally serious conditions, which in rough terms kill at least 10x more people than even the highest estimate of covid, resulted in an increase in the number of non-covid, preventable early deaths. The consequences of this delayed treatment is still working through the system and will continue to show as additional excess deaths. the link discusses wave 1 last year, but the same thing has happened repeatedly since. Countries who didn't deliberately break their healthcare systems before covid hit do not have the level of excess deaths seen in places like the USA and UK who did.


A proportion of these preventable early deaths due to delayed treatment will have positive coronavirus test results or will have been infected in hospital and will be tagged as covid deaths.

It has been estimated that at least one third all those who die in hospital with "covid", didn't have coronavirus when they went into hospital. A proportion of those in hospital with a positive coronavirus test who then die, do not have covid. So where on the whole, are the exceptionally vulnerable people in society contracting coronavirus? what does the headline death number really mean?

I have always recognized that coronavirus can and does kill people and it can kill or harm you if you are unlucky and that is an evident truth but that should not prevent objectively looking at the wider picture and trying to find the balance. Asking all the awkward questions is exactly what everyone should be doing.

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.
Charles Mackay
 

chinup

Moderator: H&R
Staff member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
5,298
Location
Greatest city on Earth
it is incredibly important to know whether someone died of covid or with covid (whether it was a positive test around at the time of death).
oh so when it suits you, outcomes that you insist are boolean (someone dying or not dying) suddenly become multi-valued? but when someone else suggests that treating everything as a boolean is an oversimplification, you accuse them of bullshitting then don't respond to the references they provide you?
Countries who didn't deliberately break their healthcare systems before covid hit do not have the level of excess deaths seen in places like the USA and UK who did.

what do you mean by deliberately break their healthcare systems? are you referring to systematic destruction, i.e. by Trump in the US (if there was really much to destroy) and the Tories in the UK, or do you mean the almost overnight repurposing of all available lab space, requisitioning of equipment like sequencing machines by PHE, etc? I agree that neither situation is ideal but the latter is certainly defensible given we didn't have loads of unused lab space and equipment going spare, and I can't imagine loads of other countries having that either.

given that we can't just get more health service capacity when needed, are you suggesting that people who actually can wait for their surgeries should be given hospital beds and people with COVID19 left to die? i get that they might die waiting, and the COVID patient might survive without care, and really we should have just imposed strict lockdowns and quarantines so that there was no need to choose who lives and who dies. but if one person turns up in acute need of care and the other for an elective procedure shouldn't the one in acute need be prioritised?

there is a massive issue about the long term impacts this will have, i don't know if things like cancer diagnostic rates have recovered. i just hope that it provides political incentive for long term investment in healthcare.
 

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
49,286
Location
Looking-Glass Land
Ple
oh so when it suits you, outcomes that you insist are boolean (someone dying or not dying) suddenly become multi-valued? but when someone else suggests that treating everything as a boolean is an oversimplification, you accuse them of bullshitting then don't respond to the references they provide you?


what do you mean by deliberately break their healthcare systems? are you referring to systematic destruction, i.e. by Trump in the US (if there was really much to destroy) and the Tories in the UK, or do you mean the almost overnight repurposing of all available lab space, requisitioning of equipment like sequencing machines by PHE, etc? I agree that neither situation is ideal but the latter is certainly defensible given we didn't have loads of unused lab space and equipment going spare, and I can't imagine loads of other countries having that either.

given that we can't just get more health service capacity when needed, are you suggesting that people who actually can wait for their surgeries should be given hospital beds and people with COVID19 left to die? i get that they might die waiting, and the COVID patient might survive without care, and really we should have just imposed strict lockdowns and quarantines so that there was no need to choose who lives and who dies. but if one person turns up in acute need of care and the other for an elective procedure shouldn't the one in acute need be prioritised?

there is a massive issue about the long term impacts this will have, i don't know if things like cancer diagnostic rates have recovered. i just hope that it provides political incentive for long term investment in healthcare.
Please take your dose and my dose I’ll sacrifice for the greater good
 
Top