*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (21 Viewers)

[The Z Machine]

It's just that the circumstantial evidence in favor of a lab accident has caused me to dramatically change my priors to something more like 70-30 in favor of the lab leak.

You sounded way more certain than 70-30 when you were spiking the football earlier. The circumstantial evidence is important and cannot be dismissed. But it is certainly not conclusive.

You just refuted an argument that you acknowledge I didn't make.

I've never said I was certain that covid leaked from a lab. What I'm certain about is that (a) that's plausible, (b) that line of argument should never have been suppressed, and (c) the people who suppressed it must never again be allowed to drive any important conversation.

In some ways, (c) is the most important part here. I am okay with people getting things wrong. That's bound to happen, and it's no big deal. What I have a big problem with is people who are aggressively wrong, in the sense that not only are they wrong, but they're very insistent on making other people shut up. We should insist that people like Apoorva Mandavilli look for alternative lines of employment, for example. Failing that, we should pay very careful attention to which media outlets choose to employ these folks. FBG did not ban people for discussing the lab leak theory, but platforms that did so should have to answer to their users for their moderation decisions, which resulted in their users being disinformed. Again, it's not the wrongness here that I'm primarily concerned about. It's the drive to shut down debate on a live issue. That should not be acceptable, and it should work to discredit the people who make that move.

The fact that they turned out to probably be wrong is just icing on the proverbial cake.

I can agree that shutting down discussions, especially scientific ones, is disturbing, problematic, and ungood. But that doesn't justify your condescension about those that think the origin is likely 70-30 the other way.

There is a question about open scientific questions causing panic and unjustified political responses. That goes both ways, obviously. You've consistently erred on the side of freedom of choice and individual liberties trumping the collective good. That's your perspective, and you're not going to change.

 

[Doug B]

Going back about a month more: On 9/22/2021, the ACIP met to endorse a set of then-recent FDA COVID booster authorizations. Here were the vote counts on 9/22/2021:

- Booster for people 65 or older and long-term care facility residents at least six months after they were fully vaccinated (Approve 15-0)
- Booster for people 50 and older with underlying medical conditions that might put them at higher risk of severe disease (Approve 13-2)
- Booster for people 18-49 who have underlying health conditions (Approve 9-6)
- Booster for people whose occupations put them at high risk of infection (Reject 6-9)

Going back in time and following the bread crumbs of ACIP endorsement votes has turned up some interesting facts that didn't get a lot of attention at the time.

For instance: That last Sept 2021 vote listed above, where ACIP voted not to endorse the monovalent boosters for people whose occupations put them at high risk of COVID infection?

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky superseded that vote by issuing the public-health equivalent of an executive order -- and just like that, the high-occupational risk group was approved for the boosters.

At that Sept 2021 ACIP meeting, one of the ACIP members did offer the following -- keep in mind this is September 2021. Several weeks into Delta (so no Delta-specific data) and a few months before Omicron:

One of the ACIP members who voted against recommending boosters for younger people at occupational risk — including health care workers — said she felt the committee was being drawn into an “emotional situation” and that it needed to focus on the science, which she said has not supported the use of boosters in younger age groups.

Instead, voting yes could put doubt in the minds of people that the vaccine is effective, Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, who advises the Minnesota Department of Heath on immunizations, said during Thursday’s meeting.

Bahta's particular line of reasoning is not intuitive to me at first blush -- unless Bahta meant that still-unvaccinated people would wonder why the first two shots weren't enough. Or something along those lines.

Anyway. Fast-forward three and a half months. Early January 2022. Delta has come and gone. Omicron came on like King Kong, with cases skyrocketing upwards and still a few weeks from peaking. At the 1/5/2022 ACIP meeting, Bahta's tune has changed:

37. #ACIP's discussion on whether to recommend that 12-15 yos be offered boosters, and whether the recommendation should be a permissive one (they *may* get one if they want) or a stronger one (they *should*) is coming up soon.

38. #ACIP member Kathy Poehling says her hospital is currently full, with sick kids waiting in the Emergency Dept for up to 18 hours before they can admitted because of the crush of cases. "I'm leaning towards should." Lynn Bahta said she too is leaning towards should.

For my own amusement and edification, I am going to continue to research the ACIP members' takes on vaccine recommendations at different times as I have done for Bahta's. The smoking gun for me will be to find something that suggests an ACIP member would likely warn a 'healthy adult'** patient off of a booster shot (either mono- or bivalent) today. In March 2023. I probably won't something quite that pat ... but I still want to read what these ACIP folks have said publicly about all this stuff.


** no precise definition, but for these purposes I can wing it a little.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I can agree that shutting down discussions, especially scientific ones, is disturbing, problematic, and ungood. But that doesn't justify your condescension about those that think the origin is likely 70-30 the other way.

I have absolutely no issue with people who think it's 70-30 zoonotic. I was one of those people for a brief period in early 2020. My starting prior was probably like 95-5 zoonotic.

I've tried to say this as plainly as possible, so I'll try one more time. People who think that covid had a zoonotic origin are fine in my book. The people who tried to suppress any debate around the origin stemming from a lab accident are clowns and should be relegated to clown school. If you weren't one of those people, I'm not talking to you.

There is a question about open scientific questions causing panic and unjustified political responses. That goes both ways, obviously. You've consistently erred on the side of freedom of choice and individual liberties trumping the collective good. That's your perspective, and you're not going to change.

I'm interested in having accurate knowledge about the source of covid for approximately the same reason why I'm interested in knowing whether dinosaurs had feathers or not. I just like knowing things about surface-level reality. If it turns out that covid had a zoonotic origin, I would like to know that so I don't walk around believing things that are empirically false.

I honestly don't know what it means to prioritize individual liberty over the collective good in this context. I'm just curious about the origin of (arguably) the biggest event in our lifetime. That seems normal to me. Anybody would be interested in such a topic.

 

[Doug B]

Not that the booster wouldn't be of medical benefit, or that the cost-benefit ratio isn't great enough -- but social concerns. Additionally:

This is the real problem with the appeal to authority.

These "experts" frequently drive right into other lanes because they think that they are judging social concerns properly.

Kind of an appeal to authority in reverse: I was aiming to find evidence that any of the ACIP members at that time were lukewarm (or even negative) on the fall 2021 monovalent booster from an efficacy standpoint. Bahta seemed like she was (though she voted to approve some measures anyway). The other quoted dissenters (previous page of this thread) seemed more focused on getting more unvaccinated people their first series of shots and not wanting to let 'people getting boosters' to get in the way of getting more of those first series delivered and administered.

 

[belljr]

Underreporting or not we just hit the lowest number in 2 years

 

[Doug B]

Underreporting or not we just hit the lowest number in 2 years

For better or worse, we don't really have even near real-time case counting in the U.S. anymore. Even blue states like California, Illinois, and Washington have gone to weekly confirmed case reporting -- and even then sometimes with a multi-week lag. Accordingly, when looking at confirmed case count data now, I go back two weeks from the current date. That gets you to a point where you at least have numbers for all states.

All that considered: Confirmed COVID cases are falling off a cliff in the U.S. I'm sure there's lots of asymptomatic and sub-clinical cases out there, but very few seem to make it into official counts.

COVID deaths also look to be dropping rapidly. There's the same issue with counts: Give the numbers two weeks to lock in. Even with that, though, deaths are plumeting.

COVID hospitalizations numbers are now down to about half what they were the first week of January. COVID ICU admissions are down about 40% from that same week.

Wastewater counts continue to drop, and the pace of decline is accelerating.

 

[belljr]

Underreporting or not we just hit the lowest number in 2 years

For better or worse, we don't really have even near real-time case counting in the U.S. anymore. Even blue states like California, Illinois, and Washington have gone to weekly confirmed case reporting -- and even then sometimes with a multi-week lag. Accordingly, when looking at confirmed case count data now, I go back two weeks from the current date. That gets you to a point where you at least have numbers for all states.

All that considered: Confirmed COVID cases are falling off a cliff in the U.S. I'm sure there's lots of asymptomatic and sub-clinical cases out there, but very few seem to make it into official counts.

COVID deaths also look to be dropping rapidly. There's the same issue with counts: Give the numbers two weeks to lock in. Even with that, though, deaths are plumeting.

COVID hospitalizations numbers are now down to about half what they were the first week of January. COVID ICU admissions are down about 40% from that same week.

Wastewater counts continue to drop, and the pace of decline is accelerating.

To be clear I meant my nape of the woods. We were always early on the curves compared to the rest of the country ..

The state’s seven-day average for confirmed positive tests is 574 — down 19% from a week ago and down 56% from a month ago. This is the lowest seven-day average for cases since July 22, 2021, when the average was 541

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Kevin Drum is a political blogger, not a scientist. And while I generally find him to be a pretty level-headed guy, I certainly wouldn't take his argument in favor of a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV2 as remotely definitive. (As I've said, if it were so easy to make a case one way or another regarding the origins, you wouldn't have both the scientific and intelligence communities so divided -- with "low confidence" -- regarding their conclusions.)

All of which is to say I found this summary to be interesting, but hardly dispositive:

I've mentioned several times that the bulk of the scientific evidence points to a natural origin for the COVID virus. But you may be wondering just what that evidence is. First off, there's this:

The early cases of COVID in Wuhan clustered almost entirely around the Huanan Market. That's a helluva coincidence in a city of 11 million if the virus actually originated somewhere else. Note that the virology lab is 15 miles away.

Second, there's the fact that there were actually two COVID lineages in the early days and both of them cluster around the Huanan Market. It's possible to conceive of one lab worker acquiring the virus, traveling directly to the market, and then having the virus spread from there. Unlikely but possible. However, the odds of two lab workers doing the exact same thing with two separate lineages is literally a one-in-a-million longshot. It's far too remote a coincidence to be believable.

Third, there's no genomic evidence of a non-natural origin. The famous furin cleavage site, for example, is found in other viruses. It isn't that hard for this short string of nucleotides to mutate its way into another virus.

There's more, and one of the best guides to the evidence is Michael Worobey, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. A journal article he co-authored in Science is here. A good NPR interview with him is here. And a one-hour lecture he gave a few days ago is below:

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

FYI, I read the Science article that Drum links to near the end of his post, which I found pretty fascinating; it's way more technical than a blog post, but still plenty accessible for a non-scientist like me.

While Worobey does ultimately conclude there is "strong evidence of a live-animal market origin of the pandemic", the article is not primarily focused on making that argument. What it mostly does is review in detail some of the earliest Covid cases in late 2019, and seemingly debunks what I'll call the "Streetlight effect" theory that the preponderance of early cases connected to Huanan Market was because that's where public-health officials were looking. Instead, he argues, the opposite happened: officials started looking at the market because the hospitals that reported the earliest cases to them noticed a pattern that a high percentage seemed to have a connection to the market.

Anyway, I beg of all of you not to go off my summary, since I'm sure I'm misstating a number of things. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

(FYI I also noticed that the article was from Nov. 2021; I have no idea if additional data since that time either strengthens or undercuts his conclusions. ETA: Based on this NPR interview from Feb. 2023, it would seem Worobey still feels pretty strongly that the market was the source of the outbreak)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Imagine the poor woman trying to relax in first class but being forced to deal with this busybody who wouldn’t stop harassing her about her personal choices and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Imagine the poor woman trying to relax in first class but being forced to deal with this busybody who wouldn’t stop harassing her about her personal choices and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

He is one of the worst. The grift is strong with this one.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Wait... you mean that Cochrane review that all the media outlets grabbed and ran with, and that anti-mask crowd was using as "evidence" didn't actually mean to state that masks were ineffective? Yes. That's what I mean.

Opinion | Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work (Published 2023)

A respected science organization says its review of studies about respiratory viruses was misinterpreted to incorrectly claim masks were useless.

www.nytimes.com

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

 

[Doug B]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Just an aside: Scroll down in the replies to that tweet and see where MTV’s Kurt Loder took a subtle jab at Kirsch.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Just an aside: Scroll down in the replies to that tweet and see where MTV’s Kurt Loder took a subtle jab at Kirsch.

awesome but TBH I'm just thrilled to see that Loder is still alive #old

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Imagine the poor woman trying to relax in first class but being forced to deal with this busybody who wouldn’t stop harassing her about her personal choices and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

I agree. People who are highly invested in telling other people how to manage their lives are grade A dooshnozzles. It took me a few years, but I feel like I'm finally starting to make headway with some of you.

and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

"Works in pharma" = scientist
"Is a medical doctor" = let's explain science to this person

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wait... you mean that Cochrane review that all the media outlets grabbed and ran with, and that anti-mask crowd was using as "evidence" didn't actually mean to state that masks were ineffective? Yes. That's what I mean.

Opinion | Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work (Published 2023)

A respected science organization says its review of studies about respiratory viruses was misinterpreted to incorrectly claim masks were useless.

www.nytimes.com

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

I know she didn't write headline, but the headline doesn't reflect what the Cochrane report said.

 

[Scoresman]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

 

[the moops]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

Yea I would eat a burrito made of covid for 100K

 

[The Z Machine]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

I get digging in your heels because some loser is being a total asshat, but if the guy pulls out his checkbook and there's no other conditions like taking a picture with him then, sure, I'll take $100k.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wait... you mean that Cochrane review that all the media outlets grabbed and ran with, and that anti-mask crowd was using as "evidence" didn't actually mean to state that masks were ineffective? Yes. That's what I mean.

Opinion | Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work (Published 2023)

A respected science organization says its review of studies about respiratory viruses was misinterpreted to incorrectly claim masks were useless.

www.nytimes.com

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

Also, while we're on the topic, I am trying to keep notes on who is a scientist and who isn't. So far, this is what I've got:

Definitely A Scientist:
1) People who work for pharmaceutical companies in some capacity or another.

Not A Scientist:
1) People with MDs
2) Fancy-pants economists

Can I get a ruling here?

By Zeynep Tufekci

Opinion Columnist

Who is this person, and is she a scientist? (Hint: I know the answer already).

 

[gianmarco]

Wait... you mean that Cochrane review that all the media outlets grabbed and ran with, and that anti-mask crowd was using as "evidence" didn't actually mean to state that masks were ineffective? Yes. That's what I mean.

Opinion | Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work (Published 2023)

A respected science organization says its review of studies about respiratory viruses was misinterpreted to incorrectly claim masks were useless.

www.nytimes.com

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

Also, while we're on the topic, I am trying to keep notes on who is a scientist and who isn't. So far, this is what I've got:

Definitely A Scientist:
1) People who work for pharmaceutical companies in some capacity or another.

Not A Scientist:
1) People with MDs
2) Fancy-pants economists

Can I get a ruling here?

By Zeynep Tufekci

Opinion Columnist

Who is this person, and is she a scientist? (Hint: I know the answer already).

Your repeated snark about the same thing over and over is really tiresome. You are better than this.

 

[rockaction]

Your repeated snark about the same thing over and over is really tiresome. You are better than this.

One of us found it funny and not tiresome.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

"Works in pharma" = scientist
"Is a medical doctor" = let's explain science to this person

Sorry, when did I say the latter?

Or does this fall under the “Someone said something I disagree with, therefore everyone else i disagree with is responsible for their views” exception? Because there are some people in this thread I disagree with, and I strongly suspect you would not appreciate being lumped in with them

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

And for the record, I obviously don’t believe someone who works for a pharma company has unquestioned authority over all scientific matters. Hell, for all we know she was just lying to him about her workplace to get him off her back. It was more the “I explained to her …” line, which would be offensive no matter where she worked

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

I get digging in your heels because some loser is being a total asshat, but if the guy pulls out his checkbook and there's no other conditions like taking a picture with him then, sure, I'll take $100k.

He said that he started the bidding at $100, so I suspect by the time he got to $100K she had long tuned him out

 

[Willy]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

I get digging in your heels because some loser is being a total asshat, but if the guy pulls out his checkbook and there's no other conditions like taking a picture with him then, sure, I'll take $100k.

He said that he started the bidding at $100, so I suspect by the time he got to $100K she had long tuned him out

There's no way it was a real offer once it got past a few hundred. But it sure would be fun to see him explaining to the IRS he transferred 10k+ to this lady to make a point about masks.

 

[Doug B]

Who is this person, and is she a scientist?

Doesn't matter -- she's not citing herself as "the expert".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Your repeated snark about the same thing over and over is really tiresome. You are better than this.

I'm not, really. People in this thread need to come to grips with the fact that this is all just motivated reasoning on their part. If they find a person who repeats their preferred narrative back to them, that person is an expert, regardless of their professional background. Anybody who disagrees with the preferred narrative has their background picked over with a fine tooth comb to find some reason why they can be disregarded. Snark seems like an appropriate response.

If you would like a non-snarky response, here's an essay on selective demands for rigor.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Who is this person, and is she a scientist?

Doesn't matter -- she's not citing herself as "the expert".

Do you think people with degrees in the social sciences are qualified to dig through the medical literature and do their own research?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

And for the record, I obviously don’t believe someone who works for a pharma company has unquestioned authority over all scientific matters. Hell, for all we know she was just lying to him about her workplace to get him off her back. It was more the “I explained to her …” line, which would be offensive no matter where she worked

I should also add that if you find yourself sitting next to a random doctor on a plane, you should not mansplain to them why their views on the vaccine are wrong, regardless of their specialty. You should also not do that to non-doctors

 

[jamny]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Imagine the poor woman trying to relax in first class but being forced to deal with this busybody who wouldn’t stop harassing her about her personal choices and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

It's bizarre enough behavior to actually do it but to post about it online is completely mental. I would have thought it was the woman posting about some freak harassing her on a plane.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Whatever our differences over Covid, vaccines, etc. can we all unite in agreement that this dude is a Grade A dooshnozzle?

Imagine the poor woman trying to relax in first class but being forced to deal with this busybody who wouldn’t stop harassing her about her personal choices and insisted on mansplaining science to her even after she’ she told him she works in pharma.

It's bizarre enough behavior to actually do it but to post about it online is completely mental. I would have thought it was the woman posting about some freak harassing her on a plane.

I had the same thought. Posting a picture of himself was also bizarre (though I’m glad he didn’t try to post one of the woman)

 

[The Z Machine]

IK, you're missing the point of the story. It wasn't about expertise or being a scientist. It was about mansplaining and being a jackass and then posting about it on social media like an attention whore.

She could have been a janitor or the GM of the Yankees. It doesn't matter.

 

[ZADO]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

I get digging in your heels because some loser is being a total asshat, but if the guy pulls out his checkbook and there's no other conditions like taking a picture with him then, sure, I'll take $100k.

He said that he started the bidding at $100, so I suspect by the time he got to $100K she had long tuned him out

There's no way it was a real offer once it got past a few hundred. But it sure would be fun to see him explaining to the IRS he transferred 10k+ to this lady to make a point about masks.

He should have just ordered her more food

Steve Kirsch

@stkirsch


She took off her mask as soon as the breakfast was served!!!! Because everyone knows you can’t get infected while you are eating!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IK, you're missing the point of the story. It wasn't about expertise or being a scientist. It was about mansplaining and being a jackass and then posting about it on social media like an attention whore.

She could have been a janitor or the GM of the Yankees. It doesn't matter.

I know that. It's a dumb Twitter story featuring the main character from a couple of days ago.

I just thought it was interesting that we're opposed to people getting all up in each other's faces over stuff like this now. It was that long ago that we were making a federal case out of every mask that had slipped below someone's nose. Glad to see attitudes are changing.

Edit: Also, I'm not the poster who made the connection between "works at pharma" and "is a scientist." You'll have take that up with @ignatiusjreilly I agree with you that just because somebody is employed by a pharmaceutical company doesn't mean that they have a lot of scientific expertise. For all I know, the lady in question is in charge of marketing boner pills to middle-aged NFL fans.

 

[Desert_Power]

WTF. I’d remove my mask for $100K. The guy’s a nozzle for sure but who would refuse that much money?

I get digging in your heels because some loser is being a total asshat, but if the guy pulls out his checkbook and there's no other conditions like taking a picture with him then, sure, I'll take $100k.

Cash in hand or no deal IMO

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

An Ivermectin Influencer Died. Now His Followers Are Worried About Their Own ‘Severe’ Symptoms​

Just before 7 am on March 3, Danny Lemoi posted an update in his hugely popular pro-ivermectin Telegram group, Dirt Road Discussions: “HAPPY FRIDAY ALL YOU POISONOUS HORSE PASTE EATING SURVIVORS !!!”

Hours later, Lemoi was dead.

For the last decade, Lemoi had taken a daily dose of veterinary ivermectin, a dewormer designed to be used on large animals like horses and cows. In 2021, as ivermectin became a popular alternative COVID-19 treatment among anti-vaxxers, he launched what became one of the largest Telegram channels dedicated to promoting the use of it, including instructions on how to administer ivermectin to children.

[...]

During the pandemic, Ivermectin became hugely popular among anti-vaxxers, many of whom were taking and recommending the veterinary formulation of the drug, rather than the one designed for human use. While ivermectin for humans is used to treat serious illnesses like river blindness, it has repeatedly been shown to be an ineffective treatment for COVID-19.

And according to the Missouri Poison Center, ingesting large doses of ivermectin formulated for animals has a long list of side effects, including seizures, coma, lung issues, and heart problems. Veterinary ivermectin is not a cure or effective treatment for COVID, the FDA has repeatedly warned, and is highly concentrated because it is designed for large animals like horses and cows. “Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans,” the FDA cautions.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

 

[The Commish]

He's been taking it for a decade?

Yikes!

 

[The Commish]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

who is "we" here?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

who is "we" here?

At a minimum, that would include @ignatiusjreilly since he approvingly posted the story. Of course, he's not alone.

I don't know if this applies to you personally or not. If you're the type of person who thought it was clever to make jokes about the Darwin Awards during the pandemic, then I'm talking about you. If not, don't sweat it.

 

[The Commish]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

who is "we" here?

At a minimum, that would include @ignatiusjreilly since he approvingly posted the story. Of course, he's not alone.

I don't know if this applies to you personally or not. If you're the type of person who thought it was clever to make jokes about the Darwin Awards during the pandemic, then I'm talking about you. If not, don't sweat it.

I'm of the "do what you want as long as you aren't impacting others" type. The path through this whole thing has been rather obvious in my view, but I can see how that's likely not true for everyone given their approach to content consumption. That said, I think it's a bit off to attribute intent to someone when they post an article, without comment...this isn't the PSF as much as this thread treads lightly on that line most of the time. I'd much rather us ask for peoples' thoughts directly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That said, I think it's a bit off to attribute intent to someone when they post an article, without comment...this isn't the PSF as much as this thread treads lightly on that line most of the time. I'd much rather us ask for peoples' thoughts directly.

In some circumstances, I'd agree with you. I'm done giving certain posters the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this topic, though. We all know exactly why that article made an appearance in this thread, and there's really no need to pretend otherwise. As you note, this isn't the PSF, and it's fine to drop the pretense that everyone is acting in good faith here.

 

[Scoresman]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

who is "we" here?

At a minimum, that would include @ignatiusjreilly since he approvingly posted the story. Of course, he's not alone.

I don't know if this applies to you personally or not. If you're the type of person who thought it was clever to make jokes about the Darwin Awards during the pandemic, then I'm talking about you. If not, don't sweat it.

He only posted a story, made no indication he's taking joy from it.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about people in this thread (myself included) that just flat out end up being wrong.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

who is "we" here?

At a minimum, that would include @ignatiusjreilly since he approvingly posted the story. Of course, he's not alone.

Nope. I very deliberately posted it without comment.

Given that you have repeatedly mischaracterized things that I have written, maybe you should avoid jumping to conclusions about my motives based on things I didn't even say, especially since I am 100% certain you will not find any of my posts in this thread expressing "joy" or "approval" of another person's death. (In case anyone's wondering, I consider Lemoi's death to be sad and tragic, and I take zero joy in it. But I suspect most of you already knew that.)

I also thought the article contained relevant information about ivermectin, and given that people like @IvanKaramazov* have repeatedly posted in this thread touting it as a "wonder drug", I thought it was important to highlight its risks.




* See how annoying that is?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

(In case anyone's wondering, I consider Lemoi's death to be sad and tragic, and I take zero joy in it. But I suspect most of you already knew that.)

I also thought the article contained relevant information about ivermectin, and given that people like @IvanKaramazov* have repeatedly posted in this thread touting it as a "wonder drug", I thought it was important to highlight its risks.

Yes, I can tell by the tone of the article and your follow-up commentary that you were motivated by nothing but simple human goodness. That's why you were hanging out at Vice, reading articles about random people who died from taking ivermectin, as good-natured people are wont to do. Totally believable.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Do you think people with degrees in the social sciences are qualified to dig through the medical literature and do their own research?

Also, I would like to note for the record that snark gets responses. Meanwhile, nobody wanted to take a stab at this straightforward, yes-or-no question. I wonder why.

 

[RCon]

Do you think people with degrees in the social sciences are qualified to dig through the medical literature and do their own research?

Also, I would like to note for the record that snark gets responses. Meanwhile, nobody wanted to take a stab at this straightforward, yes-or-no question. I wonder why.

No snark here. The simple answer is some are, some aren't.

 

[AAABatteries]

I see we're still doing the thing where we take joy in seeing The Bad People die. Cool.

I see we’re still doing the thing where we interpret people’s posts however we want. Not a good look man.

 

[AAABatteries]

Why would someone be taking the veterinarian version of Ivermectin prior to Covid? I thought the human version was easily obtained until then - what am I missing with this person taking it for 10 years?