*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (22 Viewers)

[Max Power]

Wait, now you guys are trusting what the government is telling you about these events? I strongly recommend you stop letting the US Government be your light on any of this stuff. The studies and science are out there for all to read. Our government was and is woefully bad at this stuff. The last place I'd be looking for the goods is in the hands of the politicians unless all I was out to do was score political points and/or reaffirm a narrative I want to be true. They will provide you all the fodder you can handle in that regard. 99.99999% of it will be ********, but they'll offer it to you anyway.

This ^

This is actually kind of ludicrous. Those of us who were paying attention knew all this stuff already. We didn't need a government report to tell us most of this stuff, but it's nice that other people are starting to catch up.

If one were so inclined, I'm sure one could find posts from me, for example, saying back in 2020 that it was pretty likely that NIH funding was involved in the research that went badly in Wuhan. That was completely predictable, because (a) we've always known that something like this was a possibility with GOF research, and (b) everybody even loosely connected to NIH went into full CYA mode instantly and on cue. If this sort of thing is news to you, should ask yourself why other people noticed this immediately and you didn't. That's a good exercise. I try to do it as often as I can.

For example, if I had been making policy decisions back in 2020 based on the information available to policy-makers at the time, I almost certainly would have supported the kind of soft lockdowns that we did in most parts of the US. In hindsight, I realize now that those were much more socially damaging than I had anticipated, and I would be regretting that decision today. (There were people who were saying that about lockdowns in 2020 -- those people were right and I was wrong, and I should probably tip my cap to them because they have a better intuitive feel for this sort of thing than I do, obviously).

You are talking about the politics (the "report" presented above) primarily framing "fault". I'm talking about the science. If you're equipped with that info, you don't have to listen to or read partisan hackery nonsense. Its tough for a person like me to watch people completely reject what the government was telling them politically back then be the same people embracing the government now as a source of truth because it now supports some preconceived belief. Doing this only makes things worse and lowers the bar of government behavior moving forward. If we are being honest with ourselves we know that we will never "know" all the facts to come to the correct conclusions regarding sourcing, initial spread etc. We can speculate all we want, but it was dishonest to dismiss out of hand possibilities at the time, given what we knew and what could be established as fact. Ironically, we are STILL in that position. We need to get comfortable with the reality of living in the unknown on this. We aren't ever going to know barring some massive security hack/breach/death bed confession etc. And even then, there will be a segment of the population that finds reason to dismiss the knew information (right or wrong).

The "fault" is highlighting what we as a country did wrong and yes, what the government got wrong as well. Who would you expect to audit the government if not for an internal review? We got a lot wrong and I'd love for everyone to learn from the events vs it becoming a political point scoring contest. I didn't take this report to be that. It was a House review of our COVID response and it probably does lean conservative, but that's just the nature of the beast.

I agree with Ivan that accountability is the biggest factor we're lacking. Real damage was done to this country by Covid itself and our response. If we're not grown up enough to learn from it, we're not going to do better the next time we face something like this.

If you're concerned about the science... what science did the report get wrong?

NIH Funded gain of function at Wuhan - This by all accounts is factual. Even if Fauci tries to play word games.

Lab Leak is very likely and always was a possibility. That didn't stop our government from working with the media to censor it. This could the most egregious aspect to our covid response. The government/media machine was hell bent on forcing one single narrative and silencing anyone who had alternate views. At the end of the day the forced narrative wasn't factual.

Fraud, waste and abuse within the covid relief act has proven to be substantial. The rich got richer, and this was imo the biggest catalyst for our current inflation woes.

Decreased trust in public health officials - I'll admit this wasn't an easy task for those charged with it, but the damage has been done. I think admitting where things went wrong and rebuilding the trust is the right move, but that also comes with these officials and the government admitting to their mistakes.

School closures will have enduring effect on a generation of kids. - We knew this when we agreed to it. Did we do the homework needed to make the right call? Was the risk assessment correct? Is there a way to get this generation of kids back on track? All things we should be looking at instead of pretending we got it right.

I saw the bullet about Gov Coumo and thought was a bit over the top, but at the same time to this day I've never seen the science behind putting covid positive patients in nursing homes. Was there ever any science that ever backed up that course of action? Looking back on it, it seems insane.

The government vaccine mandate was a colossal failure. It up ended lives and ruined careers. I think the litigation that is about to happen on this front might get ugly as well.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

 

[Max Power]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The government bastardized "the Science". The government was the one forcing regulations. Do you believe the government shouldn't be the ones leading this type of crisis response?

I didn't get political with anything else I stated. Those are just the facts of the situation.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The government bastardized "the Science". The government was the one forcing regulations. Do you believe the government shouldn't be the ones leading this type of crisis response?

I didn't get political with anything else I stated. Those are just the facts of the situation.

Again...political, but what does this mean? The science changed as we learned new things and as the virus evolved. That's how science works. The narratives around it? Sure. The whacko expectation and completely wrong expectation that it's only a "vaccine" if it stops things dead in its tracks? Sure. But this point you're conflating the "response" with the science behind the virus, how it works and the best way to combat it medically. All you're talking about here is the response part, which is absolutely political.

 

[Max Power]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The government bastardized "the Science". The government was the one forcing regulations. Do you believe the government shouldn't be the ones leading this type of crisis response?

I didn't get political with anything else I stated. Those are just the facts of the situation.

Again...political, but what does this mean? The science changed as we learned new things and as the virus evolved. That's how science works. The narratives around it? Sure. The whacko expectation and completely wrong expectation that it's only a "vaccine" if it stops things dead in its tracks? Sure. But this point you're conflating the "response" with the science behind the virus, how it works and the best way to combat it medically. All you're talking about here is the response part, which is absolutely political.

The government put "the science" on a pedestal. It wasn't allowed to be questioned and could only change when the government allowed it to. That isn't science. Science is a process that is meant to be questioned and certainly evolves over time. We had countless covid mitigation measures (based on science?) that ended up having no benefit or were just made up.

I didn't even mention the vaccine. That thing is what it is. The AAR wants to call operation warp speed a massive success, but I dont agree with that.

I also see the government and politics as separate things. I work for the government. I'm not in politics. Government is the system that exercises authority over a population and enforces policy and regulations. Politics is the activity of gaining power and influence within the government.

So there way I look at covid after action, the decisions by the government have already been made. It's time to review those decisions regardless of the politics that may have influenced them at the time.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The government bastardized "the Science". The government was the one forcing regulations. Do you believe the government shouldn't be the ones leading this type of crisis response?

I didn't get political with anything else I stated. Those are just the facts of the situation.

Again...political, but what does this mean? The science changed as we learned new things and as the virus evolved. That's how science works. The narratives around it? Sure. The whacko expectation and completely wrong expectation that it's only a "vaccine" if it stops things dead in its tracks? Sure. But this point you're conflating the "response" with the science behind the virus, how it works and the best way to combat it medically. All you're talking about here is the response part, which is absolutely political.

The government put "the science" on a pedestal. It wasn't allowed to be questioned and could only change when the government allowed it to. That isn't science. Science is a process that is meant to be questioned and certainly evolves over time. We had countless covid mitigation measures (based on science?) that ended up having no benefit or were just made up.

I didn't even mention the vaccine. That thing is what it is. The AAR wants to call operation warp speed a massive success, but I dont agree with that.

I also see the government and politics as separate things. I work for the government. I'm not in politics. Government is the system that exercises authority over a population and enforces policy and regulations. Politics is the activity of gaining power and influence within the government.

So there way I look at covid after action, the decisions by the government have already been made. It's time to review those decisions regardless of the politics that may have influenced them at the time.

If you chose to look at the science through the govt lens, that's a you problem if I'm being bluntly honest. Our lab at Vandy worked on part of the vaccine. The science was always what it was and available to everyone to read for themselves. It did exactly what it did. If you chose to view it through a middle man, that's your decision. Maybe don't do that next time?

Your definition of politics is curious at best in my opinion. I've never heard a person ever try to separate politics from government.

 

[Max Power]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.

 

[Max Power]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

 

[Max Power]

And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.

What's a better option?

 

[Terminalxylem]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

Far from it. If the virus is contained by innate immune defenses, nonspecific stuff like mucosal barriers and natural killer cells, you won’t develop antibodies at all. So a mild infection may not protect you much, if any, from reinfection.

And you’re glossing over the critical difference: only one of the two immunity strategies requires you to experience infection.

Not everyone comes out of that unscathed. OTOH, nobody receiving the vaccine will develop severe covid from it, or PASC. Though one might argue vaccine AEs may be even worse, there’s no compelling evidence to support that stance on a population level.

 

[Max Power]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

Far from it. If the virus is contained by innate immune defenses, nonspecific stuff like mucosal barriers and natural killer cells, you won’t develop antibodies at all. So a mild infection may not protect you much, if any, from reinfection.

And you’re glossing over the critical difference: only one of the two immunity strategies requires you to experience infection.

Not everyone comes out of that unscathed. OTOH, nobody receiving the vaccine will develop severe covid from it, or PASC. Though one might argue vaccine AEs may be even worse, there’s no compelling evidence to support that stance on a population level.

You are correct and that is a good distinction. If a person never had an infection, vaccine immunity is the way to go.

I was looking at it through the lens of after a person has had an infection, there was a point where that wasn't considered protection from covid and we unscientificlly shamed those people, because we implemented a vaccine or bust strategy which was wrong.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

The average person who's had covid and the vaccine are better protected than a person who's just had one of them. This has always been the scientific position. If you experienced some other message, it wasn't derived from science. Likely politics.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.

What's a better option?

A third party doing it. Apologies if that was a rhetorical question.

 

[Max Power]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

The average person who's had covid and the vaccine are better protected than a person who's just had one of them. This has always been the scientific position. If you experienced some other message, it wasn't derived from science. Likely politics.

I think Hybrid immunity offers a short term boost against reinfection, but I haven't seen anything showing Hybrid immunity is superior to natural immunity for severe covid hospitalizations and death prevention. This also ignores the risks that the vaccine itself comes with. It's not zero and its a medical decision each individual should make for themselves.

The point is vaccine immunity and natural immunity are on the same tier of protection. Prior to covid natural immunity was considered far superior to vaccine immunity. We hit a weird point where our government and science just totally discarded natural immunity.

I don't have any interest diving back into the vaccine/protection debate again. Its in the past. We've hit the point where someone with an active case of covid is allowed to be working in a federal building.

I do believe this is a good time to review the decision making in our public health response and develop a better path forward for the next outbreak.

I think conversations like should our tax dollars be funding gain of function research? If so, should we outsource that? Shouldn't we have more oversight and transparency on the matter? 7 million people died from covid that the US had a hand in creating.... We need to own that and correct that.

 

[Max Power]

And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.

What's a better option?

A third party doing it. Apologies if that was a rhetorical question.

I was open to hearing ideas, but I don't find a third party realistic. Too many closed-door sessions and classified documents that a public audit likely wouldn't have access to.

Would you support a DOGE audit?

 

[Battersbox]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The bolded question is silly and the answer should be obvious to anyone discussing this in a serious manner: we were listening to the government because the government has the power and we had no choice other than to listen to the government. It's ridiculous to say 'why are you listening to the government' as if we had a choice. We listened to the government because they control many aspects of our lives. We lost jobs, couldn't travel, watched our kids suffer, saw playgrounds closed, watched supply chains get shredded, watched old folks get sequestered from their loved ones in retirement facilities, etc.

Many of us were skeptical from the outset, or at least early on. Are you suggesting we should have simply ignored the government? Does that mean we should have disobeyed? Broken the law? What do you mean?

I know you weren't 'around' these parts during the pandemic and you're a BRAND NEW member of this community (wink), but it's still a bit insulting to suggest if we'd just followed the science a bit more closely we'd all have been as informed as you claim to be.

 

[Battersbox]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

Another problem I have with this:

Are you suggesting we shouldn't continue to investigate how a worldwide pandemic began because we might not ever get 100% certain details? We should just bury it and move on? Now THAT feels like a political stance.

 

[Battersbox]

You are talking about the politics (the "report" presented above) primarily framing "fault".

No, I'm really not. I'm interested in the underlying reality -- what actually happened, and how the world actually works. I don't really care who is saying what.

I'm interested in it to, but we're never going to know. That also means that we shouldn't be shocked even a little bit that people aren't being held accountable. That is completely expected in this situation.

Why are you so certain we'll never know? Even if there is a miniscule chance, don't you think we should maybe try to find out? By your logic, we should never attempt to hold the government accountable for anything because it could be construed as partisan.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The whole point is that our covid response was done through a government lens. Which is why the government should be the ones leading the review.

If you recall the covid days, there was science people wanted to follow outside the government scope that they were ridiculed for. Things like natural immunity from prior infections followed science, but we're dismissed by public health.

Government and politics are separate things. That isn't a unique perspective just to me.

I already relented that the response part was a crap show. Many posts ago actually.

As far as immunity, I think your comment is pretty political too. If we remember accurately, people were saying natural immunity was enough and/or more safe and vaccines were not necessary. That's objectively false. I don't think I heard a single person say that a person who got covid then got vaccinated were less protected than people who just had the vaccine. That's primarily because that's not how the immune system works. The more times the viral proteins are exposed to the immune system the stronger it gets. The body doesn't care (or even know) how the proteins were introduced. So, those that were saying being exposed to the virus sans the vaccine were just as safe is incorrect.

Natural immunity protects against severe covid. The vaccine protects against severe covid. They are the same.

The average person who's had covid and the vaccine are better protected than a person who's just had one of them. This has always been the scientific position. If you experienced some other message, it wasn't derived from science. Likely politics.

I think Hybrid immunity offers a short term boost against reinfection, but I haven't seen anything showing Hybrid immunity is superior to natural immunity for severe covid hospitalizations and death prevention. This also ignores the risks that the vaccine itself comes with. It's not zero and its a medical decision each individual should make for themselves.

The point is vaccine immunity and natural immunity are on the same tier of protection. Prior to covid natural immunity was considered far superior to vaccine immunity. We hit a weird point where our government and science just totally discarded natural immunity.

I don't have any interest diving back into the vaccine/protection debate again. Its in the past. We've hit the point where someone with an active case of covid is allowed to be working in a federal building.

I do believe this is a good time to review the decision making in our public health response and develop a better path forward for the next outbreak.

I think conversations like should our tax dollars be funding gain of function research? If so, should we outsource that? Shouldn't we have more oversight and transparency on the matter? 7 million people died from covid that the US had a hand in creating.... We need to own that and correct that.

You're talking out both sides of your mouth here it appears. It's a known, unquestionable fact that the more the body is introduced to foreign proteins, the more robust the immune system becomes. If you get COVID 10 times or get 10 vaccines or some combo of both, your immune system gets more robust and efficient each time. The body does not know (or care) if its exposed to the foreign protein via virus or vaccine. The bold is some weird talking point that came up with COVID the best I can tell. To the second sentence, nothing was ignored. It's other side of the "in order to build your immune system, you have to catch the deadly virus" coin. Yeah, there's risk with vaccines for some. There's risk with the virus too. As history is already showing, a lot of deadly risk....far more than with the vaccine.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

You are talking about the politics (the "report" presented above) primarily framing "fault".

No, I'm really not. I'm interested in the underlying reality -- what actually happened, and how the world actually works. I don't really care who is saying what.

I'm interested in it to, but we're never going to know. That also means that we shouldn't be shocked even a little bit that people aren't being held accountable. That is completely expected in this situation.

Why are you so certain we'll never know? Even if there is a miniscule chance, don't you think we should maybe try to find out? By your logic, we should never attempt to hold the government accountable for anything because it could be construed as partisan.

I'm certain because there's a lot of money and power tied into the answer. The US and China want to relinquish neither. I don't think there is a single thing wrong in trying to get the answer. Go for it. Until we have the answer and the evidence to support it though, we need not go beyond what the evidence supports in forming our realities. And our government is NEVER going to hold itself accountable. That's just silly talk. I have no idea where the last sentence came from. Seems just made up out of thin air.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Has anyone in here discussed the blood clots/heart attacks/heart surgery and the connection to the vaccines in some people?
I have 3 tennis players in my groups that had to have surgery for blood clots, one of them around the heart and the doctors all finally said that it was in response to the vaccine

That doesn't mean the vaccine is bad but I do think people are not being told the right information or told about ongoing pop up side effects

 

[Battersbox]

You are talking about the politics (the "report" presented above) primarily framing "fault".

No, I'm really not. I'm interested in the underlying reality -- what actually happened, and how the world actually works. I don't really care who is saying what.

I'm interested in it to, but we're never going to know. That also means that we shouldn't be shocked even a little bit that people aren't being held accountable. That is completely expected in this situation.

Why are you so certain we'll never know? Even if there is a miniscule chance, don't you think we should maybe try to find out? By your logic, we should never attempt to hold the government accountable for anything because it could be construed as partisan.

I'm certain because there's a lot of money and power tied into the answer. The US and China want to relinquish neither. I don't think there is a single thing wrong in trying to get the answer. Go for it. Until we have the answer and the evidence to support it though, we need not go beyond what the evidence supports in forming our realities. And our government is NEVER going to hold itself accountable. That's just silly talk. I have no idea where the last sentence came from. Seems just made up out of thin air.

The bolded is in direct response to your post #69.809 'And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.'


Aren't you implying that Republicans and politicians on the right are the ones you think botched events, and they now have no right to investigate what happened?

That's extremely partisan.

And stop telling us that 'the science' is fully in agreement on all these things from lab origin/response/containment measures etc. There is wide disagreement about what was done and should have been done. Maintaining that you understand the science completely of all these things and somehow have the answers is insulting and frankly should be embarrassing for you.

You don't even have the courage to post under your former handle in here, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

At the very least, stop talking down over the tip of your nose to everyone else.

 

[SoBeDad]

Has anyone in here discussed the blood clots/heart attacks/heart surgery and the connection to the vaccines in some people?
I have 3 tennis players in my groups that had to have surgery for blood clots, one of them around the heart and the doctors all finally said that it was in response to the vaccine

That doesn't mean the vaccine is bad but I do think people are not being told the right information or told about ongoing pop up side effects

Which vaccine? IIRC, the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer were associated with an increase in pericarditis while the J&J and Astrazeneca vaccines usung traditional technology were associated with blood clots. Only the Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax vaccine (traditional tecnology without clot risk) are authorized now. In hindsight, were the newer mRNA vaccines safer?

The UK and other countries with socialized Healthcare records are able to best study these associations. From what i can gather, the risks for clots was on the order of 1 in 100,000. And the risks of blood clots from Covid alone is higher, but health and age matter.

Here is from the UK:

Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different COVID-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England - Nature Communications

COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with rare cardiovascular and thrombotic complications. Here, the authors use population-based longitudinal electronic health record data from ~46 million adults in England to quantify these outcomes following different vaccine doses and schedules.

www.nature.com

 

[Sparky Polastri]

You are talking about the politics (the "report" presented above) primarily framing "fault".

No, I'm really not. I'm interested in the underlying reality -- what actually happened, and how the world actually works. I don't really care who is saying what.

I'm interested in it to, but we're never going to know. That also means that we shouldn't be shocked even a little bit that people aren't being held accountable. That is completely expected in this situation.

Why are you so certain we'll never know? Even if there is a miniscule chance, don't you think we should maybe try to find out? By your logic, we should never attempt to hold the government accountable for anything because it could be construed as partisan.

I'm certain because there's a lot of money and power tied into the answer. The US and China want to relinquish neither. I don't think there is a single thing wrong in trying to get the answer. Go for it. Until we have the answer and the evidence to support it though, we need not go beyond what the evidence supports in forming our realities. And our government is NEVER going to hold itself accountable. That's just silly talk. I have no idea where the last sentence came from. Seems just made up out of thin air.

The bolded is in direct response to your post #69.809 'And no, I don't think the group who completely botched the events should be evaluating themselves to "get to the bottom of it all" That's crazy talk to me.'


Aren't you implying that Republicans and politicians on the right are the ones you think botched events, and they now have no right to investigate what happened?

That's extremely partisan.

And stop telling us that 'the science' is fully in agreement on all these things from lab origin/response/containment measures etc. There is wide disagreement about what was done and should have been done. Maintaining that you understand the science completely of all these things and somehow have the answers is insulting and frankly should be embarrassing for you.

You don't even have the courage to post under your former handle in here, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

At the very least, stop talking down over the tip of your nose to everyone else.

No. There is no implications. I'm flat out saying our government IN TOTAL (not just one side or the other) was at the wheel for the decisions. The collective is responsible. And I think it's crazy that any of us would trust them policing themselves. There is no real reason to read into my posts. If something isn't clear, just ask me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And stop telling us that 'the science' is fully in agreement on all these things from lab origin/response/containment measures etc. There is wide disagreement about what was done and should have been done. Maintaining that you understand the science completely of all these things and somehow have the answers is insulting and frankly should be embarrassing for you.

I did bo such thing. Ever. As a matter of fact, up thread MANY times that well likely never know enough to determine one way or the other. The ONLY thing that can be ruled out with very high confidence, is that this was MADE i.e. MANUFACTURED in a lab. It was not. Was it altered? Don't know. Can that be answered one day? Maybe.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

You don't even have the courage to post under your former handle in here, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

This is my own handle. @Joe Bryant can vouch for that. But this place has always loved to attack the messenger in lieu of the message they don't like. Or they just make up a narrative, assign it to the poster and then attack the narrative as if the other poster actually said it. You're two for two. Good job!!

 

[jamny]

Has anyone in here discussed the blood clots/heart attacks/heart surgery and the connection to the vaccines in some people?
I have 3 tennis players in my groups that had to have surgery for blood clots, one of them around the heart and the doctors all finally said that it was in response to the vaccine

That doesn't mean the vaccine is bad but I do think people are not being told the right information or told about ongoing pop up side effects

I know someone who developed a rash over his entire body, including his face, the day after getting the vax. He still has it to this day.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Has anyone in here discussed the blood clots/heart attacks/heart surgery and the connection to the vaccines in some people?
I have 3 tennis players in my groups that had to have surgery for blood clots, one of them around the heart and the doctors all finally said that it was in response to the vaccine

That doesn't mean the vaccine is bad but I do think people are not being told the right information or told about ongoing pop up side effects

Which vaccine? IIRC, the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer were associated with an increase in pericarditis while the J&J and Astrazeneca vaccines usung traditional technology were associated with blood clots. Only the Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax vaccine (traditional tecnology without clot risk) are authorized now. In hindsight, were the newer mRNA vaccines safer?

The UK and other countries with socialized Healthcare records are able to best study these associations. From what i can gather, the risks for clots was on the order of 1 in 100,000. And the risks of blood clots from Covid alone is higher, but health and age matter.

Here is from the UK:

Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different COVID-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England - Nature Communications

COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with rare cardiovascular and thrombotic complications. Here, the authors use population-based longitudinal electronic health record data from ~46 million adults in England to quantify these outcomes following different vaccine doses and schedules.

www.nature.com

All of them are North of 60

 

[IC FBGCav]

Wow, finally a real discussion in here.

 

[shadrap]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The bolded question is silly and the answer should be obvious to anyone discussing this in a serious manner: we were listening to the government because the government has the power and we had no choice other than to listen to the government. It's ridiculous to say 'why are you listening to the government' as if we had a choice. We listened to the government because they control many aspects of our lives. We lost jobs, couldn't travel, watched our kids suffer, saw playgrounds closed, watched supply chains get shredded, watched old folks get sequestered from their loved ones in retirement facilities, etc.

Many of us were skeptical from the outset, or at least early on. Are you suggesting we should have simply ignored the government? Does that mean we should have disobeyed? Broken the law? What do you mean?

I know you weren't 'around' these parts during the pandemic and you're a BRAND NEW member of this community (wink), but it's still a bit insulting to suggest if we'd just followed the science a bit more closely we'd all have been as informed as you claim to be.

I'm high risk. I did the 2 covid shots. Based on what was happening & my complete distrust of anything government I have not got any more shots. It's called free will & I went with it. I have no problem with anyone using their free will & doing things different.
good luck everyone.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Would you support a DOGE audit?

DOGE, the “new” department with Elon Musk at the helm? Is that what you consider an impartial government entity?

 

[Max Power]

Would you support a DOGE audit?

DOGE, the “new” department with Elon Musk at the helm? Is that what you consider an impartial government entity?

More along the lines of DOGE is not a federal agency, but will be advising on some federal audits.

I'm not sure we can find an impartial anything anymore.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Would you support a DOGE audit?

DOGE, the “new” department with Elon Musk at the helm? Is that what you consider an impartial government entity?

More along the lines of DOGE is not a federal agency, but will be advising on some federal audits.

I'm not sure we can find an impartial anything anymore.

I’m not as cynical about impartiality, but DOGE definitely does/will not qualify.

 

[IC FBGCav]

This goes back to my initial comment. Why are you listening to the government over the science in the first place? I'm not going beyond that question because you start with saying you don't want it to be political and then the rest of your post is political. The "response" side is completely political. There is no question it was a complete crap show for a myriad of reasons. The "how did this get out/spread" part we're never going to have enough information to say, with certainty one way or the other. I'll just throw out there, that there's probably something to be gleaned from the US AND China remaining pretty silent on this. Which in turn, puts a lot of focus on our actions in the first days of this fiasco and what path we were put on early on.....again, purely political.

The bolded question is silly and the answer should be obvious to anyone discussing this in a serious manner: we were listening to the government because the government has the power and we had no choice other than to listen to the government. It's ridiculous to say 'why are you listening to the government' as if we had a choice. We listened to the government because they control many aspects of our lives. We lost jobs, couldn't travel, watched our kids suffer, saw playgrounds closed, watched supply chains get shredded, watched old folks get sequestered from their loved ones in retirement facilities, etc.

Many of us were skeptical from the outset, or at least early on. Are you suggesting we should have simply ignored the government? Does that mean we should have disobeyed? Broken the law? What do you mean?

I know you weren't 'around' these parts during the pandemic and you're a BRAND NEW member of this community (wink), but it's still a bit insulting to suggest if we'd just followed the science a bit more closely we'd all have been as informed as you claim to be.

I'm high risk. I did the 2 covid shots. Based on what was happening & my complete distrust of anything government I have not got any more shots. It's called free will & I went with it. I have no problem with anyone using their free will & doing things different.
good luck everyone.

I had covid before the "shot" it wasn't a vaccine. Still isn't. The pressure from people to take a shot after having the virus was insane. I'm just glad this thread is finally heading in the right direction.

 

[Max Power]

Would you support a DOGE audit?

DOGE, the “new” department with Elon Musk at the helm? Is that what you consider an impartial government entity?

More along the lines of DOGE is not a federal agency, but will be advising on some federal audits.

I'm not sure we can find an impartial anything anymore.

I’m not as cynical about impartiality, but DOGE definitely does/will not qualify.

Anyone who funds a third party audit will have some level of agenda.

I'll support DOGE until they show I shouldn't.

 

[titusbramble]

Still blows my mind this thread is getting posts in what is nearly 2025

 

[the moops]

Still blows my mind this thread is getting posts in what is nearly 2025

We are still living with covid and still figuring out what the heck happened and what we did wrong.

Have a friend who is suffering from long covid. It sounds awful. Some weeks he is fine. Others he is exhausted. Others he loses his voice.

 

[Battersbox]

You don't even have the courage to post under your former handle in here, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

This is my own handle. @Joe Bryant can vouch for that. But this place has always loved to attack the messenger in lieu of the message they don't like. Or they just make up a narrative, assign it to the poster and then attack the narrative as if the other poster actually said it. You're two for two. Good job!!

This is my own handle, I'm brand new! Joe can vouch for me.

Next sentence: 'this place has always...'

If you don't have the courage to just admit who you are, I have no time for you and no interest in your opinions.

 

[titusbramble]

Still blows my mind this thread is getting posts in what is nearly 2025

We are still living with covid and still figuring out what the heck happened and what we did wrong.

Well, the answer to both basically violates forum rule #1, so given how itchy the mod's trigger finger is on said posts, I think my question is still valid

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Sorry

You don't even have the courage to post under your former handle in here, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

This is my own handle. @Joe Bryant can vouch for that. But this place has always loved to attack the messenger in lieu of the message they don't like. Or they just make up a narrative, assign it to the poster and then attack the narrative as if the other poster actually said it. You're two for two. Good job!!

This is my own handle, I'm brand new! Joe can vouch for me.

Next sentence: 'this place has always...'

If you don't have the courage to just admit who you are, I have no time for you and no interest in your opinions.

Good. Move on. Joe doesn't want us talking about each other. You can't seem to do that, so please, ignore me. It also helps keep the conspiracy theory alive!!!!

 

[Scoresman]

Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.

 

[Max Power]

Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.

There is a working theory that repeated covid vaccinations are impacting the IgG4 ratio and could be creating an immune tolerance that may suppress antiviral responses.

 

[fatness]

Controversial COVID study that promoted unproven treatment retracted after four-year saga
Paper on hydroxychloroquine led by French researcher Didier Raoult is second-most-cited study ever to be withdrawn.

Researchers had critiqued the controversial paper many times, raising concerns about its data quality and an unclear ethics-approval process. Its eventual withdrawal, on the grounds of concerns over ethical approval and doubts about the conduct of the research, marks the 28th retraction for co-author Didier Raoult, a French microbiologist, formerly at Marseille’s Hospital-University Institute Mediterranean Infection (IHU), who shot to global prominence in the pandemic.

Six individuals treated with HCQ also dropped out of the study — of whom one died and three were transferred to an intensive-care unit.

archived article: https://archive.is/MLUHG

 

[Sparky Polastri]

You guys are slipping.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

?

 

[culdeus]

Wife and kid got it and tested + last week. Bunch of people got down at work but all were back in a couple days.

 

[Max Power]

On the plus side, the Military will likely reinstate the troops who were kicked out over the vaccine mandate.

 

[SofaKings]

On the plus side, the Military will likely reinstate the troops who were kicked out over the vaccine mandate.

Because they need the numbers!