Covid-19 News/Discussion

[Xenos]

26 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

What's wrong with having concerns about an experimental injection that was rushed through by drug companies who are now making BILLIONS and who have been given 100% immunity from any liability?

There’s so much misinformation in your post. But this part always boggles my mind when people say this about the vaccine. It wasn’t rushed and it’s not experimental.

So no peace to you at all.

On a side note: you should have stayed a Vikings fan. Kirk Cousin is more of your QB than Trevor Lawrence.

[Xenos]

27 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

The kind of thinking in this meme is the problem.  It is closed-minded arrogance.  A lot of the people who are putting their faith in "science" may be naively making the assumption that the data they are being given can be trusted 100%.  Maybe it can, but here is a question that I don't think a lot of you have taken the time to consider:  What if the data you are being given by the CDC is either incomplete or just simply incorrect?  If it is, then your "science" is of no more more value than what lady in the picture above is depositing in the toilet. 

I am not even going so far as to say that I am correct.  What I am saying is that I have concerns.  What's wrong with having concerns about an experimental injection that was rushed through by drug companies who are now making BILLIONS and who have been given 100% immunity from any liability?

Don't take my word for things.  I don't claim to be a doctor or a scientist.  That is not even the area where I have done any research.  The areas I have spend many hours in research include the subjects of history, politics, etc.  These are some of the subjects that many of you immediately write off as "conspiracy theories" and give no credibility.

I hope I am wrong in being concerned.  But the question, once again, is "what if I'm right?"

 Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything.  Here is a web site where medical professionals post about their concerns regarding the vaccines. 

https://www.medscape.com/sites/public/covid-19/vaccine-insights/how-concerned-are-you-about-vaccine-related-adverse-events

Some of the concerns mention that the CDC could be "cooking the books" to fit a certain narrative, however most concerns listed come from their own observations with themselves or those of their patients. 

Again, I don't expect anyone to come to any conclusion solely from the information in the posts on this site.  It's just something that may be worth considering in the whole scheme of things.  Make of it what you will. 

Peace to you all.

 

 

Should have just used this gif.

[Uncle Buck]

1 minute ago, Xenos said:

There’s so much misinformation in your post. But this part always boggles my mind when people say this about the vaccine. It wasn’t rushed and it’s not experimental.

So no peace to you at all.

On a side note: you should have stayed a Vikings fan. Kirk Cousin is more of your QB than Trevor Lawrence.

Much appreciated. 

Just remember that the Chargers have won the same number of Super Bowls as the Vikings and the Jaguars. 

There is NO misinformation in this post.

[Xenos]

1 minute ago, Uncle Buck said:

Much appreciated. 

Just remember that the Chargers have won the same number of Super Bowls as the Vikings and the Jaguars. 

There is NO misinformation in this post.

Cool. I’m glad that you finally said something factual.

[ET80]

48 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

 

My favorite part of these responses is knowing DTMB isn’t even going to bother reading them or learn anything, he’s already halfway down some other rabbit hole looking for the next bit of info without context that’s gonna blow his mind to bits.

Nobody tell him about the moon landing...

[Uncle Buck]

2 minutes ago, Xenos said:

Cool. I’m glad that you finally said something factual.

You have made 600 posts in this thread so far.  I'll be eagerly awaiting some facts from you that can actually be trusted.

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

There is NO misinformation in this post.

Enormous collective LOL from every reader

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

30 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

I am not even going so far as to say that I am correct.  What I am saying is that I have concerns.  What's wrong with having concerns about an experimental injection that was rushed through by drug companies who are now making BILLIONS and who have been given 100% immunity from any liability?

I mean, this has been addressed previously by folks in here who work in pharmaceuticals.  The tl;dr is that it was expedited, not “rushed”. No time sitting on desks waiting for review, no 40 hour work weeks to complete, etc.. 

Maybe @Shanedorf wants to explain it again. I wouldn’t, but he’s nicer than me.

30 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

I hope I am wrong in being concerned.  But the question, once again, is "what if I'm right?"

Right about what exactly?  What’s your concern, specifically.

30 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

 Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything.  Here is a web site where medical professionals post about their concerns regarding the vaccines. 

https://www.medscape.com/sites/public/covid-19/vaccine-insights/how-concerned-are-you-about-vaccine-related-adverse-events

Some of the concerns mention that the CDC could be "cooking the books" to fit a certain narrative, however most concerns listed come from their own observations with themselves or those of their patients. 

And this is the problem.  These are unverified anecdotes and not even remotely comparable to peer reviewed data collected in a manner that is meant to hold up to criticism/skepticism.

You're comparing apples to potatoes and pretending they’re one and the same.

[Uncle Buck]

One thing you guys should keep in mind is that I am the one here who IS NOT claiming to be stating fact.  I am asking questions and posing concerns.  I find it so interesting that the group of people who I spent decades listening to them spout off about being open-minded are now the ones who will not even consider ideas from sources other than the ones they are familiar and comfortable with. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

One thing you guys should keep in mind is that I am the one here who IS NOT claiming to be stating fact.  I am asking questions and posing concerns.  I find it so interesting that the group of people who I spent decades listening to them spout off about being open-minded are now the ones who will not even consider ideas from sources other than the ones they are familiar and comfortable with. 

No one has a problem with asking questions.  
 

We have a problem with “asking questions” and refusing to accept answers when they’re given from reputable sources when they contradict what you’re reading on the corners of the internet or from anecdotal nonsense.

[Uncle Buck]

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, this has been addressed previously by folks in here who work in pharmaceuticals.  The tl;dr is that it was expedited, not “rushed”. No time sitting on desks waiting for review, no 40 hour work weeks to complete, etc.. 

Maybe @Shanedorf wants to explain it again. I wouldn’t, but he’s nicer than me.

Right about what exactly?  What’s your concern, specifically.

And this is the problem.  These are unverified anecdotes and not even remotely comparable to peer reviewed data collected in a manner that is meant to hold up to criticism/skepticism.

You're comparing apples to potatoes and pretending they’re one and the same.

I never claimed that it was "peer reviewed data collected in a manner that is meant to hold up to criticism/skepticism."  I said they were people professionals their concerns.  Is that not at least worth considering? 

[Xenos]

2 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

One thing you guys should keep in mind is that I am the one here who IS NOT claiming to be stating fact.  I am asking questions and posing concerns.  I find it so interesting that the group of people who I spent decades listening to them spout off about being open-minded are now the ones who will not even consider ideas from sources other than the ones they are familiar and comfortable with. 

When those other sources push false misinformation about the vaccine ie. it was rushed and experimental, then it’s not a reliable source. Sometimes there are no grey areas.

[ET80]

42 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

Maybe it can, but here is a question that I don't think a lot of you have taken the time to consider:  What if the data you are being given by the CDC is either incomplete or just simply incorrect?  

It's still more accurate than pretty much every single theory or assumption presented by someone who hosts a blog or website. 

The data from the CDC isn't determined in a vacuum - it's a global effort from many different nations, with feedback from everyone around the world and stress tested by people who have studied in this field for decades. It's peer reviewed, it follows the scientific method, there is an order of operation from "theory" to "generally accepted".

Serious question for you - how do you think the CDC comes to any of their conclusions to begin with? How does the CDC get their data?

If your response is "I don't know" then could you please figure this out first, THEN ask the questions you're asking? Because you're ignoring a significant amount of context in how they come to their conclusions. It's not a bunch of people saying "Well... what about this?"  

These people aren't just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. They literally have decades of case studies and empirical data that they use to come to the conclusions they come to - unlike many other "sources" who have the conclusions they WANT to come to, and create false narratives to get there.

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

I never claimed that it was "peer reviewed data collected in a manner that is meant to hold up to criticism/skepticism."  I said they were people professionals their concerns.  Is that not at least worth considering? 

Buck - in your own could you explain to me what "peer review" means? I'm trying to baseline what you actually know about the peer review process.

I think a lot of our disconnect can be traced here.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

I never claimed that it was "peer reviewed data collected in a manner that is meant to hold up to criticism/skepticism."  I said they were people professionals their concerns.  Is that not at least worth considering? 

No, not at all!
 

1.  Just because you “work in healthcare” doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the damned vaccines. Unless you work in pharmacy, biochemical engineering, etc, this is not something you’ve had anything more than a high level overview of, at best. Ask me how I know.

2. Idiots work in healthcare, just like every other field. This is one reason why information needs to be peer reviewed.  You don’t get a free pass to say whatever and have it accepted as fact just because you passed med school.