-fish-
Footballguy
He was self-medicating for Lyme disease.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
- Status
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Yeah - I read that. But why not with the human version? That’s the part I don’t get - would he not get a prescription for it so had to go that route?
Doug B
Footballguy
After reading your post about motivated reasoning, I didn't see the point in responding. There's no worthwhile debate here -- I'm not seeing anything to move off of my position and I don't believe you are, either.
To answer the question in red, though ... I disagree that it's a straightforward question. It's an oversimplicfication to throw "people with degrees in the social sciences" into one bucket. It's case-by-case. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Can't simplify qualification down to one factor.
However: I don't believe your question is necessarily germane to Tufekci, anyhow. She is not an expert in the field and does not claim to be an expert in the field. I don't believe she's poring through the medical literature on her own, picking up bits here and there, and drawing conclusions for readers. Conversely, I do think she's talking to researchers in the field (as cited several times in her editorial), gathering input, and has a reliable finger on the pulse of current consensus -- and is skilled in relating same to the general public. When people say that they like to follow Zeynep Tufekci's COVID writings, they're not saying that Tufekci herself is one of the COVID experts they trust. They are saying that for them, she is a reliable conduit to front-line researchers and consensus builders in the field (and sometimes even those who buck consensus, as she quotes in her recent opinion piece).
"Not an expert" is not equivalent to "having nothing worthwhile to contribute". A physician doesn't have to be an immunological expert or a front-line immunological researcher to be able to apply standards of [COVID] care to their patients. No more than a top Formula 1 crew chief needs to be able to smelt their own aluminum or to make tire rubber from tree sap. Like Terminalxylem said about a doctor diverging from standards of care in speaking to patients about the COVID vaccine: He would want a good reason from the doctor about why they're making that divergence. And if it were me, the doctor pointing me to individual studies wouldn't be itself good enough to explain why those studies should be held up over the consensus.
Last edited:
The Commish
Footballguy
I know that not everyone is acting in good faith in this thread. That's been clear since the "conversation" hopped over here from the PSF. However, it's important to let people clarify what they are posting. Hell, I give that courtesy to even the most obvious trolls even though they never take me up on it and I'm 99.99999999999999999% sure what they are/aren't saying.
-fish-
Footballguy
Yeah, I'm assuming he couldn't find a doctor that would give him a prescription for off-label use so he went to his local Wilco/Tractor Store
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That's fair. I think I might be a little ahead of the curve in having decided that I am simply done with a certain style of online argumentation.
Look, if the guy had a legitimate reason for posting a Vice (lol) article about some random person's death besides wanting to give his little buddies some chuckles over this latest Darwin Award, he could have said so when he posted it. He didn't. We all know why, and I think we should drop the pretense that we don't. The grace period for returning to normalcy has ended IMO.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
First of all, "hanging out at Vice"? Do you have any understanding of how the Internet works?
And yes, I think posting a story that highlights the dangers of ivermectin when anti-vaxxers like you are constantly touting it as a miracle cure is being helpful. The fact that you constructed some elaborate narrative in your head of me laughing with my buddies about Darwin Awards says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Oh, and while I don't think anyone should be forced to disprove offensive accusations that are based on zero evidence, I can nonetheless point you to this post of mine from last year
belljr
Footballguy
So not a "died suddenly" canidate? /sarcasm
Last edited:
The General
Footballguy
There’s no way this dumbass is writing a check for 100K if this lady took her mask off
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Guy taking horse version for ten years is probably more of a good safety indicator about the prescription version than it is a bad one.
rockaction
Footballguy
He's not an anti-vaxxer. This is ironic. You would seem to want everybody to not assume anything about your motive for posting about the death of somebody using Ivermectin, yet you assumed something totally wrong about IK. He has gotten at least three vaccination shots, completing the first cycle and getting a booster. Maybe more than that. He actually trusts Pfizer and the other companies more than he trusts the federal government.
You know, if you're asking for somebody not to assume something, you could try and do the same.
And I loved your posts in my other, more personal thread, so this isn't a personal knock against you or slagging your personality. I think you were both wrong in assuming something about the other, because I don't think you were posting to get a chuckle about somebody's death.
But that's just me and maybe I'm feeling charitable tonight. I just think you both might want to take a step back and maybe breathe a little metaphoric breath before engaging with each other. You're both simpatico in my book.
The Commish
Footballguy
Seems that neither of you has a good handle on what the other stands for. It's probably time for you both to drop it and move on. I think labeling IK "anti-vax" is as accurate as him labeling/framing your post the way he did.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down a second! What you guys are saying is that I'm mischaracterizing IK's position? That I'm conflating the views of one person with whom I disagree with those of others I disagree with?
I had figured since he didn't explicitly say in his most recent post that he wasn't an anti-vaxxer, I could automatically assume that he was. But now I see how that may have been unfair. I offer Ivan my full-throated apology.
After all, the one thing I would never want to do after being told by multiple people that I was mischaracterizing his views is double down and continue to insist he held beliefs that he clearly doesn't hold. Because that would be completely obnoxious.
I think we all learned a valuable lesson today
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
Indoor air is full of flu and COVID viruses. Will countries clean it up?
The current pandemic has focused attention to the importance of healthy indoor air and could spur lasting improvements to the air we breathe.
www.nature.com
Bars in Belgium could be among the healthiest places to have a drink, come July. That’s when a new law goes into effect, requiring public venues to meet air-quality targets and display real-time measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations — a proxy for how much clean air is piped in.
Consumers in Belgium will get even more information in 2025, when gyms, restaurants and indoor workspaces must all show air-quality ratings given through a certification system. In the event of a future pandemic, Belgium’s rating system could determine whether or not a venue is closed.
The law, enacted in July 2022, is the boldest in a string of moves that countries have taken in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic to make indoor spaces safer in the face of infectious diseases caused by viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.
LawFitz
Footballguy
Long Covid. Sure. Show me some studies of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed when it comes to "Long Covid." Pathetic and sad to see another conspiracy theory (they will blame Covid for vax effects) become very real.
Everyone I know who is unvaxxed (plenty enough of them in my circle, fortunately) got Covid and bounced back fairly quick and totally fine. And a bunch of people I know who were vaxxed have gotten Covid 2-3 times now, a few have Long Covid, and a bunch of them have seemingly been sick non-stop with various colds and flus since last fall. Pisses me off so much to see previously healthy middle-aged friends and family members with what appear to be compromised immune systems.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
A better example would be if I was showing up in this thread and dropping random articles from garbage-tier sites about young men suffering heart attacks without commentary. A person might reasonably assume that I was trying to say something but was too chicken#### to come out and say it. That would be on me.
I detect a hint of sarcasm
LawFitz
Footballguy
The irony of this post referring to being too chickenshit to say something direct is outstanding.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That wasn't directed at you in any way. You've never seemed shy about saying what was on your mind. Just running with that poster's anti-vaxx example.
The Commish
Footballguy
Ha.....and here I thought you were talking about him specifically because he's done exactly what you describe 5 or 6 times. This is a good example of why I said above we give people the opportunity to explain. He even thought you were talking about him
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It's no problem. I understand why he thought that, and it was just an oversight on my part. We clarified the situation and we're good.Ha.....and here I thought you were talking about him specifically because he's done exactly what you describe 5 or 6 times. This is a good example of why I said above we give people the opportunity to explain. He even thought you were talking about him
Battersbox
Footballguy
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
Interesting thread. The author think Zeynep is full of prunes.
Doug B
Footballguy
Thacker goes off the rails immediately, though. Thacker's words in black text, my comments & quotes from Tufekci's opinion piece in red.
1. UNMASKING THE NEW YORK TIMES' ZEYNEP TUFEKCI According to a Cochrane statement and internal emails, Zeynep Tufekci falsely accused a recent Cochrane review author for misinterpretations of the review on masks. Tufekci didn't make this accusation at all -- she quoted the Cochrane Library's editor-in-chief directly:
"Now the organization, Cochrane, says that the way it summarized the review was unclear and imprecise, and that the way some people interpreted it was wrong.
“Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane review shows that ‘masks don’t work,’ which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of the Cochrane Library, said in a statement."
2. Cochrane found no evidence that masks work, then put out a clarification which Tufekci seized upon to claim masks do work. She then trashed 1 of 12 Cochrane scientist, even though Cochrane's Karla Soares-Weiser took full responsibility. Cochrane wasn't looking for evidence that "masks work". Again, in Soares-Weiser's own words:
“The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses,” Soares-Weiser said, adding, “Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.”
3. (Thacker addresses an internal Cochrane Review email, presumably not available to the public)
4. I emailed Tufekci: "If Cochrane has explained that Dr. Soares-Weiser takes responsibility, why did you name Tom Jefferson so many times? Is there something personal?” If there's something personal between Cochrane and Tufekci, she's not out of bounds in her editorial. She quotes him directly and links to the interview from which those quotes are drawn so that readers can evaluate context.
5. Tufekci published a review in 2021 that advocated for masks and regulations. That conclusion competes directly w/ Cochrane's. Tufekci did not respond when I asked if she disclosed this. Is Tufekci using the Times platform to advance her scientific beliefs? This is not 'Tufekci's review' -- she and 18 other researchers contributed to an evidence and literature review. It's good that Thacker accurately uses the term "review" here, because the article is an aggregation of the findings of many original studies -- the article IS NOT in itself an original study.
6. Tufekci began advocating for masks in early 2020. She has long been a mask proponent, even before publishing her 1 lone study she got the CDC to change policy and then advised the WHO on masks. Whoops -- not a 'study', a 'review' (and yes, the difference matters). And FWIW, she has five published articles, not one. None of them are studies.
But you know ... Tufekci's bona fides don't really matter. A speculative spat between her and Jefferson doesn't matter. Tearing her down doesn't change anything about scientific consensus in the field and the research that underpins it. Taking down individuals is not the path to overturning consensus and creating a new paradigm.
LawFitz
Footballguy
Lol. Oh, really?
Battersbox
Footballguy
Your last sentence is 100% true. I wish people would remember it more often (certain GBD doctors would probably like a word).
I disagree about her bona fides however. They are relevant because for some reason she has had tremendous influence over public policy over the past few years. While it is in poor taste to 'take down' anyone, it's absolutely fine to question credentials.
-fish-
Footballguy
Wondered when that would hit this thread. There were those that celebrated the Cochrane report as vindication for their "masks don't work" mantras, even though that isn't what it said at all. When they clarified it some of those same people needed to lash out at someone. Tufekci, who pointed out what the report actually said before the clarification, seems like the obvious choice.
Battersbox
Footballguy
2 sides of the same coin: Tufecki says they work, others say they don't. Cochrane simply confirms there is nothing conclusive.
The difference is Tufecki helped set policy.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is all true, and I agree. Since I'm making all sorts of friends in this thread, I'll add that I think some of the criticism coming Tufekci's way is a little overwrought. I honestly don't mind at all if somebody was a little over-enthusiastic about masks early in the pandemic. Lots of us -- including me and everyone else in this thread -- was wrong about all kinds of stuff in 2020. Charity is called for when we're trying to figure what's going on in an unprecedented and stressful situation.
Having said that, I think Thacker and others aren't going after her because they're worried about overturning a consensus. We know what the consensus is -- Cochrane did that work for us. In 2023, this sort of analysis is about holding people accountable. This is an important part of moving on. Apoorva Mandavilli should be changing my oil every 6000 miles, not writing for the New York Times. Peter Daszak should be seeking asylum with the PRC, not receiving new NIH grants to do god-knows-what. Every single person who signed this letter should be either unemployed or working in an area with no decision-making authority whatsoever. And I'm not even getting into elected officials or political appointees because this isn't the forum for that.
I like Robin Hansen a lot. I think he'd be a fun guy to hang out with. He argued in favor of people intentionally infecting themselves with covid-19 in much the same way that some of us remember chicken pox play dates. The result of such an approach would have been catastrophically awful, and I'm glad we didn't go that route, but I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking. I definitely do not want to punish that sort of thing.
Leana Wen was a little too school-marmish for my tastes during the emergency phase of the pandemic. But when the vaccines arrived, she recognized them as game-changers and actually updated her policy recommendations accordingly. That's very good! I can handle somebody being wrong-ish if I know that they're acting in good faith, and her willingness to update with new data showed me that she was doing so. Big thumbs up for Wen.
Zeynep Tufekci occupies kind of a grey zone for me. Her continued commitment to masking is hard to explain without getting into non-rational motivations like conflict of interest and audience capture. But at this point, she's just kind of a cat lady -- weird, but harmless. I'm not that eager to pile on.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The fact that we are sitting here in 2023 and still can't tell one way or the other whether masks did anything at all, should tell us conclusively that we were dumb to fight over this in 2020. Speaking as somebody who supported mask mandates at the time, I should not have made that a hill to die on.
For instance, we know vaccines ended the pandemic. We all saw it happen right in front of our eyes. An illiterate person without access to news of any kind would be able to see the night and day difference wrought by the mRNA vaccines. Nobody needs to conduct any fancy statistical tests to figure out whether vaccines worked. By way of contrast, we have basically nothing one way or the other on masks, and we probably never will.
For instance, we know vaccines ended the pandemic. We all saw it happen right in front of our eyes. An illiterate person without access to news of any kind would be able to see the night and day difference wrought by the mRNA vaccines. Nobody needs to conduct any fancy statistical tests to figure out whether vaccines worked. By way of contrast, we have basically nothing one way or the other on masks, and we probably never will.
Last edited:
-fish-
Footballguy
Cochrane's report isn't the issue. It's the people who jumped on it as proof that their anti-mask rhetoric was justified, even though it said no such thing.
The difference is whether you base your opinions on available evidence, or whether you try to twist evidence to fit your opinions.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Sure. Agreed. I'm just saying Tufecki is guilty as well, from the other direction.
Scoresman
Footballguy
When it comes to "Do masks work?", aren't there still two completely different questions?
1.) Do masks work to curb the spread of COVID
2.) Do masks work in providing a level of protection for the individual against COVID?
I don't think anyone who is wearing masks at this point wear them to protect others, unless they are sick. I only wear mine in certain situations because studies have shown they do help the individual.
But it might be that simply asking "Do masks work?" isn't clear enough to answer.
1.) Do masks work to curb the spread of COVID
2.) Do masks work in providing a level of protection for the individual against COVID?
I don't think anyone who is wearing masks at this point wear them to protect others, unless they are sick. I only wear mine in certain situations because studies have shown they do help the individual.
But it might be that simply asking "Do masks work?" isn't clear enough to answer.
Doug B
Footballguy
To be clearer: Consensus in the field doesn't depend at all on Tufekci's personal bona fides and most especially not on her specific credentials in the immunological field (of which she has none). Nor on any other individual's. Note that I'm not using bona fides to mean 'credentials' or 'authority'.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
There's also an intertemporal element to all of this.
Say it's flu season and I don't want to get the flu. If I mask up for a few weeks, that might be enough to dodge this year's influenza spike in my area. (I don't know that's actually true, just putting it out there as a plausible argument). So it might make a lot of sense to wear a mask for those few weeks.
But what about a world with endemic covid? Masking (let's say -- again, we don't actually know this) reduces your chances of getting covid each time you go into a store. But the law of large numbers is still working against you. You're still going to get covid anyway. All you're doing is prolonging the inevitable, and it's not clear why there would be any value in doing so.
Except that in 2020 we didn't have vaccines. Back then, there was potentially great value in prolonging the inevitable for just a few more months.
We shouldn't forget these sorts of considerations too.
Doug B
Footballguy
Cochrane never addressed or investigated whether or not masks work -- see above.
It's crucial to recognize the wide gulf between "mask interventions/mandates/encouragements don't affect COVID transmission" versus "masks don't work to limit transmission at the individual level". The two are being constantly conflated ... and anyone leading with something about "X showed that masks don't work!" is starting far behind the 8-ball for me.
EDIT: Regarding setting policy ... I doubt policy was set on her individual say-so. However, I'd like to read more about what influence Tufekci did peddle. I know she spoke to WHO. I need to read up and see to who else she advocated mask measures.
Doug B
Footballguy
I actually want to see is she's advocating anything beyond personal masking NOW. Is she in favor of wide public mask mandates TODAY? I actually have no idea.
All I've seen Tufekci write lately is that individual-level masking works for sure, and nothing published or touted recently overturns that.
Scoresman
Footballguy
This is one of the reasons I still mask. The longer I prolong getting it, the more time there is for new treatments to develop, particularly for long Covid at this point.
Battersbox
Footballguy
I see where you're coming from, but again it goes both ways.
People tend to conflate the two meanings of whether or not masks 'work', I 100% agree. Often they will say 'oh, they work on an individual basis to limit transmission' when refuting someone who is obviously (though not always explicitly) saying 'mask mandates don't work to substantially suppress covid transmission in a given region/environment/school, etc.
In Tufecki's case, she clearly has argued for massive mask mandates because she thought they were useful to suppress widespread transmission in addition to individual protection. While responding to more recent criticisms of her past influences on masking policy she is now stressing they work for individuals. While this may or may not be true, it does nothing to address the fact that she was loudly in favor of widespread mandates in the past because she maintained they would help limit outbreaks.
Ultimately, most of us who abandoned support for masking mandates early on have never disputed that individuals have the right to wear them. The primary beef is with compelling the masses to wear masks in the absence of solid proof it provides a net benefit for ending or shortening a pandemic.
I don't know for sure how influential Tufecki was in helping usher in widespread mandates. I've read differing opinions on that.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Yes. The 'when' of all this matters.
I also always remind myself each of us has differing perspectives simply from where we reside. For me, I live on the border between Illinois and Wisconsin--2 states who took different approaches to Covid, especially regarding masking. My experience shapes my opinions of course. When you can drive 5 minutes to a restaurant and have a burger and not worry about a mask, and then drive 5 minutes in the other direction and see notices on every window on main street of 'no admittance without a mask' you can't help but think it's all so arbitrary it borders on lunacy. These stark differences remained in place for a LONG time.
This seems to be conflating something different entirely. "Masks work (or don't) on an individual basis", "masks work (or don't) in aggregate to slow/limit transmission among the populace", and "mask mandates work (or don't) to slow/limit transmission among the populace" are three completely different arguments.
Battersbox
Footballguy
The first of the three is certainly stand alone. To me the second two are similar. But even if they are not, people use the first example at times to argue in bad faith about the latter two. It's so typical for writers or talking heads to pretend they don't understand where others are coming from. Not saying that's what's happening in here, I'm talking more generally.
See, I don't think the second two are very similar. One is whether the masks do something or not, while the second is both whether the mandates are effective at driving compliance AND whether masks do something or not.
That is, pretend for sake of argument that universal masking is 100% effective at preventing transmission. Further, pretend for sake of argument that a mask mandate leads to 50% of people actually wearing masks and the other 50% ignoring the mandate. In such an example (extreme, I know), one can easily see how "masks work" and "mask mandates work" are two completely different statements.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Regardless of whether the latter two are similar or not, the individual protection argument has been wielded by the intellectually dishonest to refute both of them whenever convenient.
The Commish
Footballguy
Two and three are similar in that they talk about masks....that's about it. One and two are closer to each other though....two is basically an extrapolation of #1. This country isn't equipped to DO #2 so I don't think about it a whole lot, but are there people out there saying that if this country was all on the same page and that we had 100% participation that the results WOULDN'T be any different than what we see today? Sorry...the mask debate hasn't been one I've hugely interested in knowing our country's preconceived notions of masks in the first place.
Sure, and vice versa.
Doug B
Footballguy
Didn't do a super-super deep dive ... but I gave this question 10 or so minutes of online searching. Gotta be something she's written recently ... nothing two years old or anything like that.
Preliminary verdict is that no -- Tufekci is not currently advocating a return to wide-spread 2020-style mask mandates. Defending past masking interventions IMHO is not equivalent to currently advocating mask mandates.
Battersbox
Footballguy
I agree with you. It's fine for folks to change their minds. There was a time I thought mask mandates made sense. It wasn't for long, but I believed what I was being told.
That said, some folks took a lot longer than others to change direction. I think it's fair and even necessary to audit the timelines of those who were influential in setting policy.
Doug B
Footballguy
This post of yours didn't foster any discussion, but I'm glad you posted.
What to do, personally, about long COVID has been one of the confounding things about "getting back to 2019". Is long COVID kind of random, in that there's no rhyme or reason to who will get the very worst of cases and thus you kind of have to treat life-altering long COVID the way you treat car accidents, crime victimization in low-crime areas, and so on? Or is it something that's worth bending way over backwards to avoid?
Still haven't figured it out for myself, although there seems to be a clear random element in play**. Meanwhile, I'm a year-plus past adopting personal anti-COVID NPIs (unless you count not having to engage in crowds very much) and not really sure exactly what risk I'm running day-to-day. I mean, I think my personal risk of COVID-caused life alteration is statistically pretty low (despite feeling some suspicious stuff myself that I detailed a few pages back). But I don't know if "statistically pretty low" is more like one in 1,000 or 1 in 1,000,000.
** Anecdotally, it doesn't appear that healthy weight and cardiovascular conditioning are necessarily protective against pernicious long COVID. I know people who live in the gym (granted, in their 50s) that complain often about nuisance long COVID symptoms (brain fog and fatigue, "feeling old" basically) lasting well past a year. The Physics Girl lady in YLE's article is another one, and she doesn't look like she's made 40 years old yet. Conversely, I know obese people (40-60ish age range) that skated through COVID and report that they were back to normal within a few weeks. But like I said ... anecdotes.
- Status
