Covid: the shape of things to come

Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
Agree with a lot of what you said. I will actually be OK if unvaccinated people are not allowed on planes or buses, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. This is what they did in Israel more or less. And at some point it becomes only about risks and benefits. Just imagine what could happen is a more dangerous virus, e.g. smallpox, gets reintroduced into circulation. My bet is that the governments will mandate the smallpox vaccine in no time (some of the older folks have that shot, but a lot of the younger adults didn't get it after smallpox was declared eradicated).
Yea. It’s kind of unhelpful to talk here about mandating vaccines for everyone in the country. That’s very polarizing, even threatening to some, and at least in the US it’s never going to happen. I’d definitely support vaccinations being required for eating in restaurants, etc, when caseloads are not at a minimum.
 

riba

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
638
Reaction score
636
Location
The Netherlands
what do think, if you're the boss of a whole ****ing hospital? and have worked your way up.
it is just that she has science against her....
she might be a perfect administrator. Also, healthcare is highly specialized, so "medical education" unfortunately doesnt say much.
 

spaceconvoy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Florida
While I have zero sympathy for vaccine refusers (you're more worried about the unknown long-term side effects of the vaccine than what long covid might do to your body in a decade or two? make it make sense) it's frustrating that people can't recognize the doublespeak and gaslighting that's happening here.

They try to convince vaccine refusers of the importance of protecting the vulnerable and preventing future strains by limiting the circulation of the virus. When it's pointed out that vaccines are not very effective at stopping transmission (today Israel reported that the standard two-dose Pfizer regime is only 39% effective at preventing infection), the argument becomes 'well, they're very effective against hospitalization.'

I think many people have their heads in the sand and want to believe this thing could go away if we all just got vaccinated. But if 61% of vaccinated people are still spreading the virus (while it mutates inside bodies with strong immune responses! think about the terrifying implications of that) we will never achieve herd immunity. Hospital capacity is still a good argument though.
 

spaceconvoy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Florida
You say this is not a normal virus, this is false.
Call me a crackpot, but please read this entire article before telling me you still believe covid originated naturally

 

MarcelNL

professional blame taker
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
1,206
around here at least i think everybody that wants to be vaccinated is. and no more people will get vaccinated. i think we will top out at 65-70% or so. very few people i meet trust these vaccines.

best part was one of my friends mother. and she was the the top doctor or whatever they're called of a hospital here, basically the manager of a hospital. and i asked him if she was taking it. he told me she said "no ****ing way". and she knows a thing or 2 about this.
bollocks, I meet and work with 'highly educated' people on a daily basis the 'lowest'level is a Bsc the highest educated have at least one phD, usually topped off with some more, and believe me it does not save anyone from being silly, dumb or even outright stupid, not even mentioning blind spots arrogance or ego. We all stay human.

Please go read 'irrationality' or a similar book, I had a grandfather who smoked his whole life from 13 onwards and he did not die of lung cancer (it's even true, he died of prostate cancer aged 89) ..that tale does not make smoking safe...

The crazy arguments based on n=1 that people pull is such a load of nonsense....

A couple of years ago we were researching whether or not we wanted to have our youngest vaccinated for everything or make a selection, I dug through whatever literature and publications that are out there (pro and con)...you know what? The majority of the 'reasoning' is based on the 'works' of one idiot who got denounced as fraud, all the rest has none of the basics to support any claim scientifically and are a loose concoction prepared with a slosh of swashbuckle, a dash of BS to be served with a bit of conjecture.
 
Last edited:

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
I think many people have their heads in the sand and want to believe this thing could go away if we all just got vaccinated. But if 61% of vaccinated people are still spreading the virus (while it mutates inside bodies with strong immune responses! think about the terrifying implications of that) we will never achieve herd immunity. Hospital capacity is still a good argument though.
Depends what you mean by “go away”. If everyone were vaccinated, the virus would be so much less dangerous that it wouldn’t be a pandemic anymore.


Call me a crackpot, but please read this entire article before telling me you still believe covid originated naturally

I’m not sure that’s what he meant by a normal virus. He was just talking about whether it obeyed patterns that we understand and have experience with, origin notwithstanding.
 

MarcelNL

professional blame taker
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
1,206
Call me a crackpot, but please read this entire article before telling me you still believe covid originated naturally

crackpot

Just joking...could not resist....I'll trade you for a few publications saying the opposite, and we can go yes but no but yes but no until we see green in the face...which will not do anything to Covid or for people suffering from it or at risk of suffering.

Bottom line is that it does not matter that much where the virus originates from, it is here and not going anywhere, we need to deal with it now.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
At least from what I hear the origin is really up in the air, and the lab leak hypothesis is certainly possible. But nobody has any real evidence, so I’m not sure what the point is of arguing about it.
 

spaceconvoy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Florida
If you don't understand the reasons why virologists have spent a great deal of effort to track down the progenitor of ebola, or why it's important for researchers to know the origin of an virus, then why would anyone take your opinion seriously?

What was the point of such an empty response?
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
If you don't understand the reasons why virologists have spent a great deal of effort to track down the progenitor of ebola, or why it's important for researchers to know the origin of an virus, then why would anyone take your opinion seriously?
Oh, I’m not debating that it’s important to know where it came from. I’m glad people are investigating this, and if there’s ever a scientific consensus about it, or even just a few pieces of solid evidence, I’ll be super interested to hear the details! I’m just talking about having heated discussions about it on KKF where people insist that it’s essentially proven one way or the other, when it seems like there’s no hard evidence so far in support or against.
 

spaceconvoy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Florida
Depends what you mean by “go away”. If everyone were vaccinated, the virus would be so much less dangerous that it wouldn’t be a pandemic anymore.
So you believe it will stop mutating just because people are no longer being hospitalized? Do you just believe whatever the CDC tells you?

I’m just talking about having heated discussions about it on KKF where people insist that it’s essentially proven one way or the other, when it seems like there’s no hard evidence so far in support or against.
There is plenty of evidence (the furin cleavage site with arginine codons being perhaps the most compelling) if you would actually read the article and keep an open mind. To me you sound like someone rejecting the theory of evolution because we have no direct evidence for it either.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
Probably I'm being too dismissive. I'm mainly complaining about tone. What I've read of the article you linked is great. I just get quickly frustrated with internet conversations that take still muddled science and present it as fact, so I have a quick knee jerk reaction when I think things are headed that way.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
So you believe it will stop mutating just because people are no longer being hospitalized? Do you just believe whatever the CDC tells you?
I believe the CDC before I believe other stuff I read on the internet. If the virus mutates to the point that we need new vaccines or mask mandates or lockdowns, then we deal with that. I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems to me that given the enormous economic and social costs, if everyone were vaccinated and risks were currently minimal, the country would operate as usual for the time being, which would be a win, no? I'm a little confused about what we're arguing about.

There is plenty of evidence (the furin cleavage site with arginine codons being perhaps the most compelling) if you would actually read the article and keep an open mind. To me you sound like someone rejecting the theory of evolution because we have no direct evidence for it either.
From the article you cite:

I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, I’m going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster.

The author is responsible in including this paragraph. But many people citing the article seem to omit it. That's what bothers me.
 

chiffonodd

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
1,141
Location
Seattle
Although I chose to be vaccinated, I respect those who choose not to.
The Government has no right to force anyone to do so. This is a FREE country and the gov needs to be held in check, like stay out of my business.
There is so much disinformation and out right lies out there, one can not know the truth.
One they all agree on, but do not talk about, is better than 98% survival rate among those without other serious conditions.
I am 69, in good health and have nothing to fear.
Sorry but that is incorrect as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence. The United States Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) that the Fourteenth Amendment permits state governments to enact mandatory vaccine requirements to protect public safety.

Specifically, the Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
 

spaceconvoy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Florida
I believe the CDC before I believe other stuff I read on the internet.
I do not. The CDC has admitted lying to the public about the necessity of masks early on in the pandemic for the sake of preventing a run on supplies before they could be secured for hospitals. Their stance on masks now with the delta variant stinks of pure politics too. The fact that you think the CDC is even slightly more reputable than journalists (because they're "on the internet"?) is all the evidence I need to form a theory of how critically you're thinking about this.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
9,465
Location
Boston, MA
I do not. The CDC has admitted lying to the public about the necessity of masks early on in the pandemic for the sake of preventing a run on supplies before they could be secured for hospitals. Their stance on masks now with the delta variant stinks of pure politics too. The fact that you think the CDC is even slightly more reputable than journalists (because they're "on the internet"?) is all the evidence I need to form a theory of how critically you're thinking about this.
I admit I'm confused about the history of the mask mandate. I was under the impression that the early mask guidelines were made before people really knew about asymptomatic spread and that many of Fauci's early remarks that people cite included the point about preserving masks for health care workers. Maybe that's wrong. If someone has some sources they'd like to link, I'm happy to look at them. Also, I didn't mean as much to refer to journalists at reputable institutions with the `internet' comment, fwiw, but still, I generally trust the CDC to be operating in the interest of public health. Anyway, have a good day.
 

JDA_NC

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
401
Reaction score
59
Any facts to back up that claim? Sure, colonial conquest may have started a lot of exploration but, to suggest the masses looking for freedom from persecution were really traveling the Atlantic under sail at great personal peril were really there for "power and profit" has no support in factual history I am aware of other than the slaves sold by their countryman in Africa.
"Although data on immigration for the colonial period are scattered and incomplete a number of scholars have estimated that between half and three quarters of European immigrants arriving in the colonies came as indentured or redemptioner servants. Using data for the end of the colonial period Grubb (1985b) found that close to three-quarters of English immigrants to Pennsylvania and nearly 60 percent of German immigrants arrived as servants.

The other major source of labor for the colonies was the forced migration of African slaves. Slavery had been introduced in the West Indies at an early date, but it was not until the late seventeenth century that significant numbers of slaves began to be imported into the mainland colonies. From 1700 to 1780 the proportion of blacks in the Chesapeake region grew from 13 percent to around 40 percent. In South Carolina and Georgia, the black share of the population climbed from 18 percent to 41 percent in the same period (McCusker and Menard, 1985, p. 222). Galenson (1984) explains the transition from indentured European to enslaved African labor as the result of shifts in supply and demand conditions in England and the trans-Atlantic slave market. Conditions in Europe improved after 1650, reducing the supply of indentured servants, while at the same time increased competition in the slave trade was lowering the price of slaves (Dunn 1984). In some sense the colonies’ early experience with indentured servants paved the way for the transition to slavery. Like slaves, indentured servants were unfree, and ownership of their labor could be freely transferred from one owner to another. Unlike slaves, however, they could look forward to eventually becoming free (Morgan 1971).

Over time a marked regional division in labor market institutions emerged in colonial America. The use of slaves was concentrated in the Chesapeake and Lower South, where the presence of staple export crops (rice, indigo and tobacco) provided economic rewards for expanding the scale of cultivation beyond the size achievable with family labor. European immigrants (primarily indentured servants) tended to concentrate in the Chesapeake and Middle Colonies, where servants could expect to find the greatest opportunities to enter agriculture once they had completed their term of service. While New England was able to support self-sufficient farmers, its climate and soil were not conducive to the expansion of commercial agriculture, with the result that it attracted relatively few slaves, indentured servants, or free immigrants." (Indentured Servitude in the Colonial U.S.)

See also:

"Investors in the Virginia Company hoped to profit from the natural resources of the New World. In 1606 Captain Bartholomew Gosnold obtained of King James I a charter for two companies. The first, the Virginia Company of London (now known generally as the "London Company"), covered what are now Maryland, Virginia and Carolina, between Latitude 34° and Latitude 41° North. Gosnold's principal backers were Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, Edward Wingfield and Richard Hakluyt.[4][5]

The second company, the Plymouth Company of London (today known as the "Plymouth Company"), was empowered to settle as far as 45° North, encompassing what are present day Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England.[6]

The Company paid all the costs of establishing each colony, and in return controlled all land and resources there, requiring all settlers to work for the Company
." (London Company - Wikipedia)

There is also the Sugar Act, Boston Tea Party, "No taxation without representation," and the American Revolutionary War. Or Manifest destiny, the Mexican-American War, and other cases of American Imperialism. And, of course, there are countless examples in our nation's history such as the American-Indian Wars, Trail of Tears, the Three-fifths Compromise, the Thirteenth Amendment, Chinese Exclusion Act, National Origins Formula, and the Internment of Japanese-Americans that illustrate that "freedom" has never been applicable to all or a top priority in our country.

Sorry this is all off-topic from the original discussion (and likely to be removed by Mods) but it does my head in when I see people regurgitate this sort of nonsense.
 

Bodine

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
292
Reaction score
594
Location
Tallahassee Fl.
Sorry but that is incorrect as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence. The United States Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) that the Fourteenth Amendment permits state governments to enact mandatory vaccine requirements to protect public safety.
Point taken, I stand corrected. Since there is no law in effect, the gov has no right at this time to force vaccinations. That law would have to be enacted by the legislature of a state, not a court.
Possible, but not probable in Florida at this time.
 

AT5760

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
783
Reaction score
1,187
Location
Omaha, NE
It wouldn't need to be the state legislature; a governor could take action through an executive order. Most of the action taken regarding COVID had been through executive orders and that's where most of the challenges in the courts have been (thanks @chiffonodd for sending me down a rabbit hole of COVID-related court decisions citing Jacobson...). You're right though that it's up to the state government to make those types of decisions and state politics will play a large role in any vaccine requirements.
 

chiffonodd

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
1,141
Location
Seattle
Point taken, I stand corrected. Since there is no law in effect, the gov has no right at this time to force vaccinations. That law would have to be enacted by the legislature of a state, not a court.
Possible, but not probable in Florida at this time.
Yeah the case is not that well known because fortunately we haven't had much need over the years for those sort of mandatory measures! But it's on the books all the same.

It makes sense when you think about the role of state governments in our system. The US Constitution specifies that any powers not enumerated to the federal government, and not otherwise inconsistent with the federal constitution, are reserved to the states. So yeah the feds (Congress, mainly) don't necessarily have the power to promulgate a nationwide mask requirement, except perhaps in the context of interstate commerce regulation. But for anything more local, that's all state government. It's called "the police power of the state" in legal circles and it's a concept that goes back centuries in Anglo-American law.
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,743
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Hawaii
Because of this thread tried research anti vaxers. Now know why never joining Facebook
or Twitter not missing out.

IDC makes some good points about labor esp. in Virginia where my family goes back to early 1700's. Scottish.
 

MarcelNL

professional blame taker
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
1,206
Vaccine card or app on phone your right to
passage.
That is exactly what the EU has been building and the app is now in place and is used for border passage, several countries like France are using the app to control access to restaurants, public transportation, musea beginning Aug 1st.
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,743
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Hawaii
Early on there were groups that came for religious freedom. Other than more well known,
Maryland had Catholics. England was a dangerous place to be during reign of Elizabeth
So was across the Eastern shore of Chesapeake bay in Virginia.

To this day & from beginning come to escape persecution in their countries of birth. Being on
wrong side of hostile takeovers. Potato blights.
 

gregfisk

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
370
Reaction score
333
Location
Seattle
only thing for certain. this virus seriously split the country into two camps.

i have some people i like that i dont talk to anymore because we are not on the same page.
I believe that the country has been split into two camps for a very long time now. People just dropped into those camps regarding Covid. It never should have been politicized in the first place and we can only hope that people come to their senses.

I completely agree that what needs to happen is businesses of all colors and stripes need to require people be vaccinated in order to enter that companies property. That would make a lot of non vaccinated people mad but it would force people to get vaccinated. I think that’s the most important thing that needs to happen now. I would love to see vaccination cards but that’s not going to happen in the US. At least I don’t think it will.
 
Top