Pfizer clinical trial data: not good at all

[Actual_Cryptid]

And the ones who choose to not get the vaccine are very much ok with those who chose to do so.

Well that's not true. There's the people out there declaring that the vaccine is a bioweapon, there was the "the vaccine causes viral shedding" hoax that went around, there's radio and youtube and cable network hosts claiming the vaccines are for control or the vaccinated are killing their children, telling each other that the vaccine is just rampantly killing people, it's a depopulation event, etc. Then there's the ones that insist they need to be allowed to overrule property owners who refuse to serve unvaccinated people. Suddenly the property rights and freedom for those business owners to choose doesn't matter anymore. It's not about control vs freedom. It's largely about people who are mad their guy isn't the one in control.

The initial mask position seems like low hanging fruit. Have you read any of Fauci’s or Collins’ emails about the Great Barrington Declaration? Or the WSJ article about the same? That doesn’t mean *everything* he or they have said isn’t correct, but it means (at least to me) that he’s like everyone - subject to error and bias.

Wtf does Trump have to do with this narrow point other than to deflect? If I point out that Fauci has not been forthright, and I also question the veracity of some of the people who disagree with Fauci, can’t you just concede the point. Did Trump lie about stuff? Sure - but so what?

The mask stuff is pretty easily debunked, at least in the sense that it wasn't "masks don't work" but "an N95 mask doesn't mean you are perfectly safe, please stop buying them all so our healthcare workers can get some." My wife was told to use one for 48 hours at her hospital, where they're important not for keeping the staff from getting sick from the patients but to keep staff from getting the patients sick, especially during surgery or when drawing blood. The purpose of the request is easily read, but when it's brought up by critics attacking Fauci it's "he changed his mind on masks."

I think it's silly to bring up Biden or Trump in this discussion. Neither is an expert, they're both old men with no expertise on any healthcare topic.

The science itself can't really be attacked unless you can convince someone that everyone is in on the coverup. Everyone at Biontech, Pfizer's immunology labs, third party researchers in the field, Moderna's lab team, peer reviewers for every journal on the topic, most every world government, the WHO and all their employees and contractors, Johnson & Johnson, the Janssen research lab, the CDC, the FDA, the pandemic response team for the federal government, the Red Cross (American and international), the Mayo Clinic. Everybody has to be in on it covering up fraud, and the evidence for that isn't there. So what do you do? Invent a conspiracy about Fauci, rope in some existing villains like bill Gates, and hope your audience mistakenly believes that Dr. Fauci is a tyrant who dictates everything rather than the head of a large team that gets on TV to promote their findings. That plays into a part of our brain that likes nice simple conspiracies with a cast of heroes and villains.

So look, if it came out that Dr. Fauci was bowling alley attendant in a rubber mask, I would have some serious questions about our hiring processes and how he managed to work in public health for decades. It would prompt a pretty rigorous review of anything he'd been directly involved with. It wouldn't change the vaccine's effectiveness or the effectiveness of wearing a mask to reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses. When you contrast that with someone like Robert Malone who has already been caught out misrepresenting his role in the history of MRNA research to lend unearned credibility to the topic I think it's a bit of a reach to try to equate the criticism of the two.

As an aside, I think it's very telling that there's a stark difference in the willingness of people to line up behind a leader and defend them. My right wing coworkers are convinced that it's somehow a win for them that I don't have a bunch of memorabilia for my favorite presidents, or that I can talk shit about Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden's policy without crying. My SF Bay aunt that is confused when I talk about wanting to see Pelosi primaried, or that Joe Biden was nearly the bottom of the list of people I wanted to be president. I think that there's a type of person, or maybe it's just a brainworm we picked up from the last century, that wants to world to be simple and partisan. My guy is good, your guy is bad and it makes you mad that I don't like him. My guy does good things, your guy does bad things. To me that kind of approach is scary because it's how the right justified the creation of DHS and the USA PATRIOT Act and the proliferation of SWAT teams kicking in doors for weed, but then in 2009 when the guy they didn't like got sworn in suddenly the same powers, it's the next step to a totalitarian state and we have to elect a Republican to preserve our freedom! But then that guy who wants to build a militarized border fence with a 100 mile zone where civil liberties are severely curtailed didn't do a dang thing to rein in federal police or end the militarization of our policy or end the drug war.

I'm real tired of conservatives and right wingers (and those groups overlap but are not the same) pretending to be libertarians every time the guy they don't like has control of the police state they helped create.

 

[fwafwow]

What makes you think those are my heroes? LOL

Some of you guys... LOL

I'm not hard to figure out. I'm pro life. That means if I need to take some actions that might slightly inconvenience me in order to even potentially save lives, I'm happy to do it. You know, love thy neighbor and all that. Not to mention loving my country enough to do my part to try and get ahead of a pandemic that has crippled our economy and caused so much social turmoil.

There are crap tons of members here who agree with me on these things but they won't say anything because they don't want to be targeted by the conspiracy theorists on the forum, whose appetites for this stuff will never be satisfied.

Some of you guys daydream about a dissenter on the forum so you have the perceived "enemy" you so desperately need to fulfill your fantasy. smdh

You are probably fine in real life, but IMHO you should join your crap ton of folks who agree with you and refrain from posting on topics if you are unwilling to respond substantively to points or topics you raise in your posts.

 

[Newtosavage]

You are probably fine in real life, but IMHO you should join your crap ton of folks who agree with you and refrain from posting on topics if you are unwilling to respond substantively to points or topics you raise in your posts.

You're right. I need to avoid these conspiracy theorist playground threads.

 

[qwerksc]

There are crap tons of members here who agree with me on these things but they won't say anything because they don't want to be targeted by the conspiracy theorists on the forum, whose appetites for this stuff will never be satisfied.

Most of “Conspiracy theorists” will agree with ya as well. This whole thing is another wedge to drive between us, the division is real. We all need to come together and read between the lines, look for the true root of the issue. Expose corporate media, big pharma and the correlation between the two.

 

[qwerksc]

You're right. I need to avoid these conspiracy theorist playground threads.

To troll or not to troll…that is the question.

 

[elkbowhuntr]

Here you go:

All of your heroes denouncing the "Trump" vaccines.

Hahahahahaha...Gotta Love it don't Ya! And they wonder why there is so much skepticism !!!

 

[Newtosavage]

To troll or not to troll…that is the question.

it seems like trolling to those who desperately need enemies I guess.

 

[fwafwow]

The mask stuff is pretty easily debunked, at least in the sense that it wasn't "masks don't work" but "an N95 mask doesn't mean you are perfectly safe, please stop buying them all so our healthcare workers can get some." My wife was told to use one for 48 hours at her hospital, where they're important not for keeping the staff from getting sick from the patients but to keep staff from getting the patients sick, especially during surgery or when drawing blood. The purpose of the request is easily read, but when it's brought up by critics attacking Fauci it's "he changed his mind on masks."

I’m only responding to the above portion because apart from agreeing with your subsequent point about keeping Trump and Biden out of the discussion, I don’t think those paragraphs are directed at me, as I haven’t said anything (IMHO) on those topics.

Here’s a point where maybe my memory and/or understanding is wrong. But I seem to remember that the public statements (I believe by Fauci, but also by the Surgeon General) about masks were that they didn’t work. I believe the nuance that you have put in quotes wasn’t shared with the public, at least initially. So maybe they didn’t change their minds, but I think they changed their message, and failing to share the full rationale is “misinformation” - the only point I was trying to cover because the post seemed to indicate that only one “side” has used misinformation.

Do I blame them for using misinformation? Not necessarily.

 

[qwerksc]

it seems like trolling to those who desperately need enemies I guess.

I hope, with these threads, that I can find a glimmer of info that I missed during my own research. We are not enemies, 99% of us should come together to put the 1% in check.

 

[fwafwow]

You're right. I need to avoid these conspiracy theorist playground threads.

Especially if your debate and discussion defense mechanism is to call people names who you can’t respond to. And if you have paid any attention to any of these threads, you would see that I and a “crap ton” of others are taking to task lots of points that you would probably characterize conspiracy theory tenants. You probably let those slide because of confirmation bias. But as an example - I listened to the Peter McCullough podcast and there is enough in there for me to seriously question him as a reliable source of information. That doesn’t mean all of what he is saying is false, just like Fauci trying to suppress dissension on the lockdown doesn’t mean he’s the Devil or he’s part of a conspiracy.

Nuance is indeed dead.

 

[WCB]

Masking people isn't working, the vaccines don't prevent spread or prevent getting the virus so mandates are pointless, including having different rules for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. An unvaccinated person is not a danger to a vaccinated person any more than two vaccinated people together. Fauci has lied consistently through this whole thing and no doubt has little man syndrome and wants to have control. Biden is a moron. The mandates are about control. Most of the "conspiracy" and "misinformation" from one side has now been admitted as truth by the media and even some on the left (see media). A ton of the "misinformation" from the other side (white house, CDC, media, left) has proven false and/or incredibly misleading Note: I did not say all "misinformation' or all "conspiracies". Live a healthy life and don't be a fat slob and the numbers are largely in your favor.

Get the shot don't get the shot whatever. BUT, if you believe a good idea is to force it on someone you are nothing less than a POS.

 

[fwafwow]

To troll or not to troll…that is the question.

I loved the cigarettes diversion, btw

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

I’m only responding to the above portion because apart from agreeing with your subsequent point about keeping Trump and Biden out of the discussion, I don’t think those paragraphs are directed at me, as I haven’t said anything (IMHO) on those topics.

Here’s a point where maybe my memory and/or understanding is wrong. But I seem to remember that the public statements (I believe by Fauci, but also by the Surgeon General) about masks were that they didn’t work. I believe the nuance that you have put in quotes wasn’t shared with the public, at least initially. So maybe they didn’t change their minds, but I think they changed their message, and failing to share the full rationale is “misinformation” - the only point I was trying to cover because the post seemed to indicate that only one “side” has used misinformation.

Do I blame them for using misinformation? Not necessarily.

We dont' have to rely on memory, the LA Times made a timeline of what was public and when.

A timeline of the CDC's advice on face masks

Rules and guidance about face masks have changed throughout the pandemic. Here's how the CDC's advice has evolved.

www.latimes.com

Starting with a February 2020 tweet from the surgeon general (Jerome Adams): “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

In March the CDC said if you weren't taking care of someone and weren't a healthcare worker, you didn't need a mask, again citing in their statement the current available evidence and the supply shortage.

It was a couple weeks later in April, when good data was available on asymptomatic transmission, that we saw the recommendation to change to wearing a cloth mask in public spaces to reduce the chances of infecting someone else. Again, the recommendation was not "this will keep you from getting infected" but "this will limit how much an infected, asymptomatic person spreads the disease" because by that point it was pretty clear nobody was complying with the other recommendation for a lockdown and self-quarantine.

Right from the jump, the consideration was that they would not prevent you from catching the disease and they were more needed for healthcare workers. Obviously a tweet doesn't have the full nuance. This was also early on when there was not as much evidence for asymptomatic spread, and it was believed (based on preliminary reporting from China) that surface contamination with a more significant risk.

To call that misinformation is wrong, it was based on the best available evidence and was attempting to address the supply shortage caused by people hoarding supplies. Again, I refer you to nurses and clinical staff having to wear the same mask for 48 hours, unable to change it for a clean one or wash it in between.

There is an interesting discussion in public health (not my field, but several of my classmates from my sociology courses were majors in the field so i stay tapped in) about the reluctance of American and European public health networks to make the jump to suggest or mandate the use of masks for people potentially exposed to a respiratory virus. It's been fairly standard in SE Asia for about a decade, if you're sick or you have a cough you wear a mask as a courtesy to others. That's where the cloth masks work, in limiting your ability to spread the disease, on conjunction with other people shunning people who refuse to take a simple step like that.

The lists of "what did we do wrong" are growing and will continue to be refined, but they bear no resemblance to what the anti-mask anti-vax talking heads claim.

How the U.S. Pandemic Response Went Wrong--and What Went Right--during a Year of COVID

On the anniversary of this global disaster, we take a look back at some of the biggest mistakes, surprising successes and lingering questions

www.scientificamerican.com

I liked this was as a pretty clear assessment of what went wrong and where, and how to avoid it in the future. It discusses confusion about mask guidance, but not in the "they changed their minds" sense as much as the "the president said masks are for real babies and held unmasked rallies while the CDC was telling people masks were absolutely necessary to limit the spread" sense. Hygeiene theater is criticized (spending money making sure we had things that looked like safety measures, rather than just shutting down nonessential business and taking care of people), mixed messaging (there's a valid rebuke of the way the WHO said "masks alone won't protect you" rather than phrasing it as "masks can reduce the spread" because of the aforementioend fear people would hoard N95s and still end up spreading the disease), and the CDC's decision in 2020 under the previous head of HHS to develop its own test rather than use the existing tests developed in Germnay.

 

[Red Letters]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478128978653233168

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[bsnedeker]

We dont' have to rely on memory, the LA Times made a timeline of what was public and when.

A timeline of the CDC's advice on face masks

Rules and guidance about face masks have changed throughout the pandemic. Here's how the CDC's advice has evolved.

www.latimes.com

Starting with a February 2020 tweet from the surgeon general (Jerome Adams): “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

In March the CDC said if you weren't taking care of someone and weren't a healthcare worker, you didn't need a mask, again citing in their statement the current available evidence and the supply shortage.

It was a couple weeks later in April, when good data was available on asymptomatic transmission, that we saw the recommendation to change to wearing a cloth mask in public spaces to reduce the chances of infecting someone else. Again, the recommendation was not "this will keep you from getting infected" but "this will limit how much an infected, asymptomatic person spreads the disease" because by that point it was pretty clear nobody was complying with the other recommendation for a lockdown and self-quarantine.

Right from the jump, the consideration was that they would not prevent you from catching the disease and they were more needed for healthcare workers. Obviously a tweet doesn't have the full nuance. This was also early on when there was not as much evidence for asymptomatic spread, and it was believed (based on preliminary reporting from China) that surface contamination with a more significant risk.

To call that misinformation is wrong, it was based on the best available evidence and was attempting to address the supply shortage caused by people hoarding supplies. Again, I refer you to nurses and clinical staff having to wear the same mask for 48 hours, unable to change it for a clean one or wash it in between.

Lol...my god, you are something else! Are you just conveniently leaving out Fauci ADMITTING that he purposefully lied to the American public about masks? He was concerned that they wouldn't have enough masks so they deliberately spread MISINFORMATION that masks don't do anything and you shouldn't buy them.

But yeah, please continue to follow his advice despite the numerous lies that he has been caught in and pretend that they didn't happen.

 

[mwebs]

Anecdotally we’ve had more boosted employees test positive at my workplace than unvaccinated employees. I am in charge of the COVID policy so know all vax statuses and receive all positive results. The number of boosted employees is slightly higher than the number unvaccinated.

Interpret that information how you will but it’s pretty interesting if you ask me.

Why can’t we all agree that the vaccines just aren’t what they are making them out to be? Let’s all get off our high horses, come out of the trenches and meet in the middle.

Everyone’s had it at this point, time to move forward with society and stay home if your sick. But quarantine periods, forced vax, etc. need to stop.

Both sides are right about certain things and wrong about others.

 

[fwafwow]

We dont' have to rely on memory, the LA Times made a timeline of what was public and when.

A timeline of the CDC's advice on face masks

Rules and guidance about face masks have changed throughout the pandemic. Here's how the CDC's advice has evolved.

www.latimes.com

Starting with a February 2020 tweet from the surgeon general (Jerome Adams): “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

In March the CDC said if you weren't taking care of someone and weren't a healthcare worker, you didn't need a mask, again citing in their statement the current available evidence and the supply shortage.

It was a couple weeks later in April, when good data was available on asymptomatic transmission, that we saw the recommendation to change to wearing a cloth mask in public spaces to reduce the chances of infecting someone else. Again, the recommendation was not "this will keep you from getting infected" but "this will limit how much an infected, asymptomatic person spreads the disease" because by that point it was pretty clear nobody was complying with the other recommendation for a lockdown and self-quarantine.

Right from the jump, the consideration was that they would not prevent you from catching the disease and they were more needed for healthcare workers. Obviously a tweet doesn't have the full nuance. This was also early on when there was not as much evidence for asymptomatic spread, and it was believed (based on preliminary reporting from China) that surface contamination with a more significant risk.

To call that misinformation is wrong, it was based on the best available evidence and was attempting to address the supply shortage caused by people hoarding supplies. Again, I refer you to nurses and clinical staff having to wear the same mask for 48 hours, unable to change it for a clean one or wash it in between.

There is an interesting discussion in public health (not my field, but several of my classmates from my sociology courses were majors in the field so i stay tapped in) about the reluctance of American and European public health networks to make the jump to suggest or mandate the use of masks for people potentially exposed to a respiratory virus. It's been fairly standard in SE Asia for about a decade, if you're sick or you have a cough you wear a mask as a courtesy to others. That's where the cloth masks work, in limiting your ability to spread the disease, on conjunction with other people shunning people who refuse to take a simple step like that.

The lists of "what did we do wrong" are growing and will continue to be refined, but they bear no resemblance to what the anti-mask anti-vax talking heads claim.

How the U.S. Pandemic Response Went Wrong--and What Went Right--during a Year of COVID

On the anniversary of this global disaster, we take a look back at some of the biggest mistakes, surprising successes and lingering questions

www.scientificamerican.com

I liked this was as a pretty clear assessment of what went wrong and where, and how to avoid it in the future. It discusses confusion about mask guidance, but not in the "they changed their minds" sense as much as the "the president said masks are for real babies and held unmasked rallies while the CDC was telling people masks were absolutely necessary to limit the spread" sense. Hygeiene theater is criticized (spending money making sure we had things that looked like safety measures, rather than just shutting down nonessential business and taking care of people), mixed messaging (there's a valid rebuke of the way the WHO said "masks alone won't protect you" rather than phrasing it as "masks can reduce the spread" because of the aforementioend fear people would hoard N95s and still end up spreading the disease), and the CDC's decision in 2020 under the previous head of HHS to develop its own test rather than use the existing tests developed in Germnay.

Thanks. I appreciate you sending a link to correct me as opposed to just calling me a conspiracy theorist. (And I bought and wore masks before we were advised to do so - fwiw.) I’m reading the article, but at first blush it looks like my memory of the absence of nuance is incorrect, or I’m conflating in my memory what was said at the time vs how some have characterized it in hindsight. If that’s right in either instance I stand corrected.

And as for the Fauci and Collins action with respect to the Great Barrington Declaration - maybe the released emails don’t tell the whole story, or the WSJ article is off base. But I’ve not seen anything (yet) to that effect.

 

[Marbles]

@Actual_Cryptid thanks for your careful replies. I burnt out and find I have a hard time being nice now, so I have been staying silent rather than being an ass.

@MattB You have more staying power than I do. Respect.

@Newtosavage I feel your frustration. My political positions have held constant, however my friends, family, and the Party I once supported have all changed. My refusal to buy in has left me pretty isolated as I'm still not a liberal (not even by the pre left shift standards of that party). Best I can say is don't waste your power and recognize that sometimes not causing damage is more valuable than action. Though the hard part is discerning when those times are. To quote a good line from a shitty movie "Be nice, until it is time not to be nice."

 

[mlgc20]

@Actual_Cryptid thanks for your careful replies. I burnt out and find I have a hard time being nice now, so I have been staying silent rather than being an ass.

@MattB You have more staying power than I do. Respect.

@Newtosavage I feel your frustration. My political positions have held constant, however my friends, family, and the Party I once supported have all changed. My refusal to buy in has left me pretty isolated as I'm still not a liberal (not even by the pre left shift standards of that party). Best I can say is don't waste your power and recognize that sometimes not causing damage is more valuable than action. Though the hard part is discerning when those times are. To quote a good line from a shitty movie "Be nice, until it is time not to be nice."

Why!?!? Why did you have to do it?!? Why did you feel the need to denigrate Road House? Even in these divisive times, we should all be able to agree that Road House was awesome. If we can't agree on that, then all hope is lost.

 

[ddd-shooter]

We dont' have to rely on memory, the LA Times made a timeline of what was public and when.

A timeline of the CDC's advice on face masks

Rules and guidance about face masks have changed throughout the pandemic. Here's how the CDC's advice has evolved.

www.latimes.com

Starting with a February 2020 tweet from the surgeon general (Jerome Adams): “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

In March the CDC said if you weren't taking care of someone and weren't a healthcare worker, you didn't need a mask, again citing in their statement the current available evidence and the supply shortage.

It was a couple weeks later in April, when good data was available on asymptomatic transmission, that we saw the recommendation to change to wearing a cloth mask in public spaces to reduce the chances of infecting someone else. Again, the recommendation was not "this will keep you from getting infected" but "this will limit how much an infected, asymptomatic person spreads the disease" because by that point it was pretty clear nobody was complying with the other recommendation for a lockdown and self-quarantine.

Right from the jump, the consideration was that they would not prevent you from catching the disease and they were more needed for healthcare workers. Obviously a tweet doesn't have the full nuance. This was also early on when there was not as much evidence for asymptomatic spread, and it was believed (based on preliminary reporting from China) that surface contamination with a more significant risk.

To call that misinformation is wrong, it was based on the best available evidence and was attempting to address the supply shortage caused by people hoarding supplies. Again, I refer you to nurses and clinical staff having to wear the same mask for 48 hours, unable to change it for a clean one or wash it in between.

There is an interesting discussion in public health (not my field, but several of my classmates from my sociology courses were majors in the field so i stay tapped in) about the reluctance of American and European public health networks to make the jump to suggest or mandate the use of masks for people potentially exposed to a respiratory virus. It's been fairly standard in SE Asia for about a decade, if you're sick or you have a cough you wear a mask as a courtesy to others. That's where the cloth masks work, in limiting your ability to spread the disease, on conjunction with other people shunning people who refuse to take a simple step like that.

The lists of "what did we do wrong" are growing and will continue to be refined, but they bear no resemblance to what the anti-mask anti-vax talking heads claim.

How the U.S. Pandemic Response Went Wrong--and What Went Right--during a Year of COVID

On the anniversary of this global disaster, we take a look back at some of the biggest mistakes, surprising successes and lingering questions

www.scientificamerican.com

I liked this was as a pretty clear assessment of what went wrong and where, and how to avoid it in the future. It discusses confusion about mask guidance, but not in the "they changed their minds" sense as much as the "the president said masks are for real babies and held unmasked rallies while the CDC was telling people masks were absolutely necessary to limit the spread" sense. Hygeiene theater is criticized (spending money making sure we had things that looked like safety measures, rather than just shutting down nonessential business and taking care of people), mixed messaging (there's a valid rebuke of the way the WHO said "masks alone won't protect you" rather than phrasing it as "masks can reduce the spread" because of the aforementioend fear people would hoard N95s and still end up spreading the disease), and the CDC's decision in 2020 under the previous head of HHS to develop its own test rather than use the existing tests developed in Germnay.

Am I wrong in my understanding that the science is very much not settled on masks?
Except for a very well fitting, frequently disposed of N95?