All things CoronaVirus

[RedFromMI]

Either dumber than a box of rocks or gives less than zero f**ks. I can’t tell which.

Johnson is not exactly smart, but he is intentionally giving "alternate" ways of protecting yourself to keep the pandemic going for crass political purposes, just like the Fox News/OAN/NewsMax opinion hosts. Anything to make Biden look bad...

And a certain fraction of the populace just keeps buying it...

[kramerica.inc]

GOP in Tennessee pressuring doctors to condone medical disinformation.

The click-bait heading in your link is disinformation. Keep on lyin' 72

It's a 1st Amendment issue genius, and push back against actual fascism. Something you and others on here love to dubiously throw around with your bogus sense of certainty.

1st Amendment? What the heck kind of backwards logic is this? Understand that if you believe that the 1st Amendment comes first, that means you don't believe in needing a medical license to practice in a State. You get that, right? Because you can't stifle someone's "1st Amendment right" to give medical advice if the 1st Amendment trumps other considerations.

JHU's headline is bogus. That's not what the story is saying.
If anything, The lawmaker does not want it known that DRs can be penalized for providing misinformation.

The other potential concern is that things can easily be misconstrued as "misinformation" when it's an emerging threat like covid. Remember, Fauci told us "masks don't work" and a myriad of other facts that have since been spreading like misinformation wildfire. Regardless of what the Rep is doing it for, why is this a bad thing for DRs? It seems like its a protection for the DRs more than anything.

[a fan]

JHU's headline is bogus. That's not what the story is saying.
If anything, The lawmaker does not want it known that DRs can be penalized for providing misinformation.

? You lost me. OF COURSE a doctor can get penalized for providing misinformation. Malpractice is the word. Lawsuits which guide removal of medical licensure. Nothing a TN legislator can do will protect a DR from a lawsuit, btw.

Politicians are threatening to dissolve medical boards if they don't do what the politicians want. You're good with that? THAT is the point of the article. If you're good with that, that's fine.

The other potential concern is that things can easily be misconstrued as "misinformation" when it's an emerging threat like covid. Remember, Fauci told us "masks don't work"

No. That was Trump misquoting Fauci, but that's beside the point.

The point of the TN Board's holding doctors accountable is so they don't make claims about bleach or Listerine that are obviously disinformation. Not much to ask, if you ask me.

[Farfromgeneva]

Either dumber than a box of rocks or gives less than zero f**ks. I can’t tell which.

Johnson is not exactly smart, but he is intentionally giving "alternate" ways of protecting yourself to keep the pandemic going for crass political purposes, just like the Fox News/OAN/NewsMax opinion hosts. Anything to make Biden look bad...

And a certain fraction of the populace just keeps buying it...

Smart enough to con other rock heads I guess is the answer.

[kramerica.inc]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

[kramerica.inc]

Found some more info on my question.
But at this point it just seems like an inevitable mutation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/omicron ... w-now.html

[MDlaxfan76]

Found some more info on my question.
But at this point it just seems like an inevitable mutation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/omicron ... w-now.html

Not sure why "inevitable" unless you mean that its growing dominance is 'inevitable' given the randomly created happenstance of more contagious.

The virus is constantly replicating, with each instance a chance of a minor, inconsequential mutation. But every once in a while, the mutation is consequential.

And those less contagious don't grow and infect as quickly as those which are, so are sort of crowded out by the faster spreading mutation.

Likewise, the random mutations of lethality, more or less, are a factor of the number of replications, no particular direction is inevitable.

But it's really, really bad news when the mutation proves to be more lethal.

So, as there's more and more spread, there's more and more replication, more and more chances of a lethal direction mutation.

And, if people can get it and spread it, even having been infected previously, then there's an ongoing high chance of a bad direction mutation.

So, lots of infection is bad news...if there ever happens to be a bad mutation on lethality.

Though obviously it would be great if the lethality happens to get better, whether through mutation or because vaccinations and therapies are so effective and easy.

So, we're looking for two things from vaccines, 1) that vaccination/boosters etc reduces the negative impact and 2) that it reduces contagiousness, or better yet stops altogether.

It's already clear that we need boosters to achieve either of these things with reliability. And #2 remains a bit iffy, though certainly appears better.
And it's also clear that prior infections are less protective than adding vaccinations.

[Bart]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

[DocBarrister]

Ignore the ignorant (including the ignorant anti-vaxxers on this forum) … get the Covid vaccine and get the booster.

"Since January, we've had about 289 deaths; 75% are unvaccinated people," Dover said. "And the very few (vaccinated people) who passed away all were more than 6 months out from their shot. So we've not had a single person who has had a booster shot die from Covid."

… "We're seeing a lot of younger people. And I think that is a bit challenging," said Sefton, a 20-year nursing veteran.
She recalls helping the family of a young adult say goodbye to their loved one.
"It was an awful night," she said. "That was one of the days I went home and just cried."

… Health experts say the best protection against Delta is to get vaccinated and boosted. But as of Thursday, only about 64.3% of eligible Americans had been fully vaccinated, and less than a third of those eligible for boosters have gotten one.

Sparrow Hospital nurse Danielle Williams said the vast majority of her Covid-19 patients are not vaccinated -- and had no idea they could get pummeled so hard by Covid-19.
"Before they walked in the door, they had a normal life. They were healthy people. They were out celebrating Thanksgiving," Williams said. "And now they're here, with a mask on their face, teary eyed, staring at me, asking me if they're going to live or not."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/us/hospi ... index.html

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Ignore the ignorant (including the ignorant anti-vaxxers on this forum) … get the Covid vaccine and get the booster.

"Since January, we've had about 289 deaths; 75% are unvaccinated people," Dover said. "And the very few (vaccinated people) who passed away all were more than 6 months out from their shot. So we've not had a single person who has had a booster shot die from Covid."

… "We're seeing a lot of younger people. And I think that is a bit challenging," said Sefton, a 20-year nursing veteran.
She recalls helping the family of a young adult say goodbye to their loved one.
"It was an awful night," she said. "That was one of the days I went home and just cried."

… Health experts say the best protection against Delta is to get vaccinated and boosted. But as of Thursday, only about 64.3% of eligible Americans had been fully vaccinated, and less than a third of those eligible for boosters have gotten one.

Sparrow Hospital nurse Danielle Williams said the vast majority of her Covid-19 patients are not vaccinated -- and had no idea they could get pummeled so hard by Covid-19.
"Before they walked in the door, they had a normal life. They were healthy people. They were out celebrating Thanksgiving," Williams said. "And now they're here, with a mask on their face, teary eyed, staring at me, asking me if they're going to live or not."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/us/hospi ... index.html

DocBarrister

It's really, really good news that vax + booster is so strong.

Those are some darn starkly obvious statistics.

Unfortunate for those resisting vaccination regimen, but seems to me that for the rational, this is really good news...and if that means we'll need further boosters as we go along, so be it.

[kramerica.inc]

Vax plus booster is strong, as is Vax + previous infection.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... protection

[kramerica.inc]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

But being less lethal is still important, which is what all the initial info says about omicron.

Given the desire to get to herd immunity, via infection or vaccination, a less-lethal and virulent mutation is getting more people closer to herd immunity with more previously infected survivors roaming around.

Seems like it's desirable to have the same number of deaths, with many, many, more people getting antibidies in their system.

[Bart]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

But being less lethal is still important, which is what all the initial info says about omicron.

Given the desire to get to herd immunity, via infection or vaccination, a less-lethal and virulent mutation is getting more people closer to herd immunity with more previously infected survivors roaming around.

Seems like it's desirable to have the same number of deaths, with many, many, more people getting antibidies in their system.

Sorry but I guess I do not agree with you here. First, there is no clear evidence that the virus is less lethal at this point. There are a number of factors that may indicate it has the exact virulent profile as the original. One potential explanation is that in a variant that appears to have a large degree of immune escape for infection in both previous infected and vaccinated you can have the appearance that the virus has mutated to a decreases virulent strain by adding back part of a previously protected population what was once removed from the susceptible population.

This thread does probably a better job of explaining it than I can. https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status ... gr%5Etweet

This op ed in the NY Times suggest that the virus is not getting milder: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opin ... ilder.html

I really just think it is too early to tell.

AS to your desirability statement at the end........it is a numbers game. The greater the spread, the greater the replication, the greater the opportunity for the thing to continue to change.

[PizzaSnake]

Found some more info on my question.
But at this point it just seems like an inevitable mutation.
R
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/omicron ... w-now.html

Ponder the law of large numbers and think through the ramifications and you will have the answer. You have to do the mental work yourself. Transferred knowledge is easy, but not lasting or foundational.

“Doing your own research” is beset by problems such as confirmation bias.

[kramerica.inc]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

But being less lethal is still important, which is what all the initial info says about omicron.

Given the desire to get to herd immunity, via infection or vaccination, a less-lethal and virulent mutation is getting more people closer to herd immunity with more previously infected survivors roaming around.

Seems like it's desirable to have the same number of deaths, with many, many, more people getting antibidies in their system.

Sorry but I guess I do not agree with you here. First, there is no clear evidence that the virus is less lethal at this point. There are a number of factors that may indicate it has the exact virulent profile as the original. One potential explanation is that in a variant that appears to have a large degree of immune escape for infection in both previous infected and vaccinated you can have the appearance that the virus has mutated to a decreases virulent strain by adding back part of a previously protected population what was once removed from the susceptible population.

This thread does probably a better job of explaining it than I can. https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status ... gr%5Etweet

This op ed in the NY Times suggest that the virus is not getting milder: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opin ... ilder.html

I really just think it is too early to tell.

AS to your desirability statement at the end........it is a numbers game. The greater the spread, the greater the replication, the greater the opportunity for the thing to continue to change.

I see. Different than some of the stuff I read previously when omicron started getting headlines a couple weeks ago. That's why I was asking. Thank you for the good info.

[Bart]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

But being less lethal is still important, which is what all the initial info says about omicron.

Given the desire to get to herd immunity, via infection or vaccination, a less-lethal and virulent mutation is getting more people closer to herd immunity with more previously infected survivors roaming around.

Seems like it's desirable to have the same number of deaths, with many, many, more people getting antibidies in their system.

Sorry but I guess I do not agree with you here. First, there is no clear evidence that the virus is less lethal at this point. There are a number of factors that may indicate it has the exact virulent profile as the original. One potential explanation is that in a variant that appears to have a large degree of immune escape for infection in both previous infected and vaccinated you can have the appearance that the virus has mutated to a decreases virulent strain by adding back part of a previously protected population what was once removed from the susceptible population.

This thread does probably a better job of explaining it than I can. https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status ... gr%5Etweet

This op ed in the NY Times suggest that the virus is not getting milder: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opin ... ilder.html

I really just think it is too early to tell.

AS to your desirability statement at the end........it is a numbers game. The greater the spread, the greater the replication, the greater the opportunity for the thing to continue to change.

I see. Different than some of the stuff I read previously when omicron started getting headlines a couple weeks ago. That's why I was asking. Thank you for the good info.

Sure. It seems to change by the day if not by the hour. I’m watching what happens in the UK. My guess….and it is a complete guess… is our performance will mirror theirs to a large extent.

[Bart]

So reports are omicron is much more contagious, but with much less severe symptoms.

Why the same (or in some cases raised) level of concern over a milder version of covid?

The thinking that we need to (or can) fully eradicate covid anytime soon seems wishful. It appears the virus is mutating to something more akin to the flu or a bad cold.

If it is mutating to something milder that is just dumb luck. Again, there is no selection pressure for the virus to mutate to a less virulent form. Data is all over the place right now on this.

To answer your first question, again it is just a numbers game. IF the Delta virus infects 100,000 people and it is 1% lethality that means it is going to kill 1,000 people. It Omicron is 3x more transmissible in the same population that is 300,000 infected and lets say it is 0.4%lethality you get 1200 deaths. So number of infected matters. A small percentage of large numbers is still a shzit ton of dead humans.

But being less lethal is still important, which is what all the initial info says about omicron.

Given the desire to get to herd immunity, via infection or vaccination, a less-lethal and virulent mutation is getting more people closer to herd immunity with more previously infected survivors roaming around.

Seems like it's desirable to have the same number of deaths, with many, many, more people getting antibidies in their system.

Sorry but I guess I do not agree with you here. First, there is no clear evidence that the virus is less lethal at this point. There are a number of factors that may indicate it has the exact virulent profile as the original. One potential explanation is that in a variant that appears to have a large degree of immune escape for infection in both previous infected and vaccinated you can have the appearance that the virus has mutated to a decreases virulent strain by adding back part of a previously protected population what was once removed from the susceptible population.

This thread does probably a better job of explaining it than I can. https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status ... gr%5Etweet

This op ed in the NY Times suggest that the virus is not getting milder: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opin ... ilder.html

I really just think it is too early to tell.

AS to your desirability statement at the end........it is a numbers game. The greater the spread, the greater the replication, the greater the opportunity for the thing to continue to change.

I see. Different than some of the stuff I read previously when omicron started getting headlines a couple weeks ago. That's why I was asking. Thank you for the good info.

Sure. It seems to change by the day if not by the hour. I’m watching what happens in the UK. My guess….and it is a complete guess… is our performance will mirror theirs to a large extent.

[Typical Lax Dad]

One year ago today:

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1687&start=19580

12/10/20 global COVID-19 deaths: 1,680,000
12/10/21 global COVID-19 deaths: 5,308,246

12/10/20 USA COVID-19 deaths: 305,000
12/10/21 USA COVID-19 deaths: 816,000

Fear porn.

[tech37]

GOP in Tennessee pressuring doctors to condone medical disinformation.

The click-bait heading in your link is disinformation. Keep on lyin' 72

It's a 1st Amendment issue genius, and push back against actual fascism. Something you and others on here love to dubiously throw around with your bogus sense of certainty.

Your response intrigued me, tech, so I clicked through to see what was happening.

Here's what I read, a medical board instituted a policy that said that spreading medical misinformation by a doctor violates their Hippocratic oath to "first do no harm" and are subject to losing their license to practice. When doctors do so, knowingly, in any other aspect of their medical practices they are indeed subject to such. And we certainly want this to be the case.

Such is the regular regulation of the medical profession by their peers.

And yet, you see a First Amendment issue, which clearly means you need to re-read the First Amendment on "free speech".

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


First, Congress has not made a law. Second, SCOTUS has repeatedly found various regulations of speech by other government entities, eg the states, as well as private editorial of speech, to not be violations of the U.S. Constitution.

So, not First Amendment.

For instance, a person is free to libel or slander another person, but they are liable for damages if successfully sued.

A person who falsely cried fire in a theater may face criminal prosecution for endangering others.

But back to the point of licensing. We should not want doctors to provide counsel or perform operations in ways which their peers know cause harm, whether the over prescription of opioids, the use of devices that are dirty, or telling a patient in danger of death or pain for whom there is a known helpful procedure or medicine to not undertake that procedure or medicine and to instead simply 'pray it away' or 'go run a marathon' or "eat some dirt" or anything else not accepted as effective medical practice. The doctor owes a duty to provide the patient with the best available care.

But note, a person who happens to be a doctor may decide they wish to "speak" medical advice that is known by their peers to be false or misleading. They are "free" to do so, but if they do, they're subject to loss of their license as a doctor.

A doctor always has a choice as to whether he or she wishes to maintain their Hippocratic oath. They can opt out of practice if they so wish.

And here we have a powerful legislator threatening a state medical licensing board with dissolution simply because they published this policy on their website. The legislator doesn't want the public know that this is the licensing board's policy.

And you're calling the licensing board "fascist".

blah, blah, blah...

Bottom line: the misinformation/disinformation campaign that you're so fond of is bullsh!t and simply a way to control speech, silencing opposing views, and IMO, reeks of fascist tendencies.

[Farfromgeneva]

Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah is the response