All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[PaulBullion]

The WHO makes more bad news that has been suspected for a while public:

There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

That would mean no herd immunity - and, just as troubling, that vaccines might not work.

[TheDarman]

The WHO makes more bad news that has been suspected for a while public:

There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

That would mean no herd immunity - and, just as troubling, that vaccines might not work.

Thankfully, it is a lack of sufficient evidence to establish that this is the case and not an abundance of contrary evidence.

It seems like this statement was put to urge caution against giving folks who have recovered from it “immunity passports”. As of right now, they just can’t be sure that they won’t be a catalyst for wave.

The idea is that, like most viral infections, such as SARs, it is likely that you do have some sort of proactive immunity against it. However, we haven’t seen evidence either way quite yet. Being cautious in the absence of evidence is responsible.

Either way, I imagine we’ll know soon enough. We have a half dozen vaccine candidates going into human trials—all of whom seem to indicate that they create antibodies. If we start to see these vaccine candidates fail altogether, we can anticipate that antibodies alone aren’t protective immunity.

[PaulBullion]

Thankfully, it is a lack of sufficient evidence to establish that this is the case and not an abundance of contrary evidence.

It seems like this statement was put to urge caution against giving folks who have recovered from it “immunity passports”. As of right now, they just can’t be sure that they won’t be a catalyst for wave.

The idea is that, like most viral infections, such as SARs, it is likely that you do have some sort of proactive immunity against it. However, we haven’t seen evidence either way quite yet. Being cautious in the absence of evidence is responsible.

Either way, I imagine we’ll know soon enough. We have a half dozen vaccine candidates going into human trials—all of whom seem to indicate that they create antibodies. If we start to see these vaccine candidates fail altogether, we can anticipate that antibodies alone aren’t protective immunity.

I am worried by the amount of recovered people that have been shown to have very few antibodies. If it's the more unspecific immune reaction that overcomes the virus and not antibodies, we might be looking at a disease like Hepatitis C, where there is no vaccine, and treatment used to be long and full of side effects until a few years ago. Interferone and other antivirals.

[worstblogever]

I am worried by the amount of recovered people that have been shown to have very few antibodies. If it's the more unspecific immune reaction that overcomes the virus and not antibodies, we might be looking at a disease like Hepatitis C, where there is no vaccine, and treatment used to be long and full of side effects until a few years ago. Interferone and other antivirals.

Even chickenpox is recurrent in some rare folks. While Covid-19 might be more frequent for re-infection, we need further study before making a determination.

[TheDarman]

Even chickenpox is recurrent in some rare folks. While Covid-19 might be more frequent for re-infection, we need further study before making a determination.

Essentially, if there is effective immunity for 85% of the population provided, it would still be worthwhile to take it to prevent outbreaks. The real issue with this virus seems to be the transmissibility of it. Cutting off those pathways will be critical, even if a vaccine isn’t effective 100% of the time.

[Mister Mets]

He has a cult like following. Can you deny that?

But why was the cult-like following active in a particular way in Maryland, the state with the 27th highest number of Trump voters?

If one hundred people spontaneously chose to call a particular state agency in Maryland based on something the President said in a press conference, why wasn't anything similar reported in the 26 states with more Trump voters, many of which are run by Democrats who would have no incentive to cover up the consequences of Trump saying something dumb (California, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and Illinois all have several times the Trump voters of Maryland.)

Stop trying to talk about "ad hominems" and address the issue raised regarding Republicans intentionally suppressing African-American voters.

All you are doing is proving the "ad hominem" true by constantly trying to attack the messenger ("projection") instead of addressing the message.

You're also being a hypocrite in repeatedly making ad hominem attacks on me instead of just addressing the issue like I asked in previous posts.

You've spent nearly half a dozen pages trying to attack a factual representation of your politics instead of simply addressing the issues raised by your party's intentional suppression of African-American votes.

Because even you know it's so reprehensible that you can't do anything but pretend you don't understand the question at hand.

It remains an ad hominem, as my comments were not about voter suppression.

I still don't know your position on the question of political philosophy to which you responded to kick off the current chain of discussion, whether we sometimes need to consider options that are distasteful and painful. Is your position that this is untrue, that there will never be situations in which all the choices are bad? Is your position that this is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't merit discussion? Are you unsure and prodding me for more details regarding an understanding of the world?

You did say that you think that I've gone with ad hominem attacks against you in the past. Do you believe that you're not engaging in an ad hominem here, but that I've done it in the past against you? And when has this occurred?

Well yeah. In Australia, under the public system, if you need a prosthetic arm then the cheapest option is given to you. Now that doesn't mean an option that doesn't work, or someone is given a hook - it has to actually be a functioning prosthetic. And do you mean big pharmaceutical and medical device corporations who only think in terms of their bottom lines rather than, say, keeping people alive?



Not "like," just that people dying might be "distasteful and painful."

There really is no point arguing with the GOP supporters. No amount of facts or evidence or common decency will ever be enough. It says a lot about their humanity. Or lack thereof.

I think from my comments what the interest group was. It is everyone who would likely to have something paid for.

As for the comment about a view that people dying might be "distasteful and painful." Do you recognize that multiple choices can result in some number of deaths? For example, the government will have to determine if a medication that occasionally has fatal side effects saves more lives than it costs?

Where i live it's a system mostly based on percentange. Each medical act is covered at a specific rate, the public health insurance tend do cover for most of it and then your private one is supposed to cover for the rest, leaving you in most case with something up to 0% to 10% of the total sum to get from your pocket.

And yes, generic medication is highly recommended. For example, and i am making up numbers here, for the generic it will be 80% covered when if you choose to not take the generic it's only going to be 50% or something.

The Australian public option seems to cover all of the costs of the generic service, so it's slightly different.

I could quibble on some of the specifics (It's probably a bad deal for the government to pay for 50% of a $300 non-generic, if the generic equivalent were $60) but the basics of the system seem fine.

But once the United States has laws that the government should pay for this stuff, it will be important for legislators to set clear limits, even if individual voters would really like it if everything they wanted were paid for.

[TriggerWarning]

Now, Tara Reade is claiming that an August 1993 clip on Larry King’s show, where an unnamed respondent discussed her daughter leaving as a staffer from an office of a man she admired and had had bad experiences with.

In an interview, she claims that the unnamed woman said that it was about sexual harassment, not assault. Neither of which are actually said in the clip or transcript. Reade claims that she had told her mom about the assault at the time and her mother had told her to file a police report, which she did not do.

You also have to remember the context of the time. Juanita Broadrick and others came forward with rape accusations about Bill Clinton and got destroyed in the media and by the Clintons over it. She would be vague so as to not get treated the way Bill Clinton's victims did.

[Mister Mets]

Someone died taking fish tank cleaner because it had a hydrochloroquine ingredient in it after Trump called it a miracle cure.

- "Not his fault."

People asked, "How long before he starts telling people to ingest bleach?"

A month later, he does.

"But he didn't mean it."

People have died from his misinformation. People can still die from his misinformation.

STOP. DEFENDING. IT. Because every time you make excuses for that dumbass, you're empowering him to potentially get more people killed.

Unless you like people dying.

Hell, if a poster on this forum started trying to tell people to drink bleach, they'd probably get banned for it.

You criticized me for pointing out that someone held out as a MAGA supporter was in fact making fun of MAGA supporters.

You're not saying anything about the substance of my concerns about the calls to the Maryland health department.

I get the argument that it's important to be on the right side, rather than to be accurate, although this is the argument used to excuse Trump's lies as well.

Facts do matter. If you say something that is untrue or exaggerated, it diminishes your argument. If your claim is that Trump told people to drink bleach, and the transcript does not include a directive to drink bleach, it's a loss of an opportunity to point out that he still said something stupid, even if it wasn't quite on that level of dumb.

If you're blaming Trump for some guy who was in an abusive relationship (the wife had been charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse against him) eating fish tank cleaner, and someone else thinks that there may be more to the story, you're going to be less persuasive next time.

You also have to remember the context of the time. Juanita Broadrick and others came forward with rape accusations about Bill Clinton and got destroyed in the media and by the Clintons over it. She would be vague so as to not get treated the way Bill Clinton's victims did.

Fair point. It was a different environment.

[aja_christopher]

You did say that you think that I've gone with ad hominem attacks against you in the past. Do you believe that you're not engaging in an ad hominem here, but that I've done it in the past against you? And when has this occurred?

Mets, either answer the question regarding your support of a party you know actively suppresses African-American voters or simply admit that you don't want to discuss it because you know there is no defense for it.

[jetengine]

Even chickenpox is recurrent in some rare folks. While Covid-19 might be more frequent for re-infection, we need further study before making a determination.

Also remember the reporting accuracy when reinfection is involved. There was a big hullabaloo about a Chinese group that suddenly seemed to be reinfecred. Yeah it turned out they hadnt been tested properly

[jetengine]

Theres nothing wrong with Mets liking a party for economic reasons or because the Dems in his area are garbage. But the awkward silence regarding this just makes him look worse.

I'm a labour voter, yet Tony Blairs record is surprisingly good despite him being a warmongering piece of ****. But I'll acknowledge hes a POS.

[aja_christopher]

Theres nothing wrong with Mets liking a party for economic reasons or because the Dems in his area are garbage. But the awkward silence regarding this just makes him look worse.

I'm a labour voter, yet Tony Blairs record is surprisingly good despite him being a warmongering piece of ****. But I'll acknowledge hes a POS.

That's just how Republicans operate in America.

The mistake most Americans make is that we assume they have our best intentions in mind when in reality their party is their main concern.

This is why they can't answer questions regarding bigotry and homophobia directly and instead make spurious comments about the "greater good".

Likewise regarding the suppression of African-American votes -- unless he sees preventing black voters from voting as "good" (for Republicans).

Mets is just doing exactly what Trump, McConnell, and every other prominent Republican does -- he paints it as personal when it's a party affair.

-----
"The election fraud committed in my race was the largest case in modern American history. My opponent hired a felon, Leslie McCrae Dowless, who promised to deliver unbelievable absentee ballot margins, as he had done in past elections. Mr. Dowless hired workers who went to voters’ doorsteps in poor, rural Bladen County, N.C., and “helped” them request, fill out and turn in their ballots. That help included forging signatures and filling in vote choices, and possibly even discarding ballots.

The operation targeted African-Americans who typically voted for Democrats. It also appeared the county elections board may have also leaked early vote totals to Republicans.

Altogether, it was an egregious attack on our democracy, in an election where the margin was only 905 votes. Voters on both sides of the aisle were horrified.

At the federal level, Republican politicians were mum. When Mr. Trump was asked about the fraud, he deflected, turning to a baseless conspiracy theory about a million fraudulent Democratic votes in California.

When a reporter asked the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about it, he shifted the blame to Democrats."

[PaulBullion]

Also remember the reporting accuracy when reinfection is involved. There was a big hullabaloo about a Chinese group that suddenly seemed to be reinfecred. Yeah it turned out they hadnt been tested properly

I'm pretty sure the WHO considered that before putting out their brief today.

[TheDarman]

You also have to remember the context of the time. Juanita Broadrick and others came forward with rape accusations about Bill Clinton and got destroyed in the media and by the Clintons over it. She would be vague so as to not get treated the way Bill Clinton's victims did.

She said that there wasn’t anymore said about these “problems” because of “respect” that they had for this “prominent Senator”. Now, I only know a handful of survivors. But even the ones who admired the monsters who abused them before they were assaulted didn’t harbor any admiration for them thereafter. And, in Reade’s case, I would doubt any of them would publicly speak out in support of their abusers 24 years after the alleged assault.

This is in addition to other inconsistencies with her story (changing the location of the alleged assault) and not wearing leggings underneath her skirt (which was highly inappropriate attire for staffers at the time). So, no. Also, people on both sides of the aisle were losing their jobs in the Senate because of harassment charges.

Didn’t Broderick testify and relent on her allegations when brought under oath? That would probably explain the torching in the media.

[jetengine]

She said that there wasn’t anymore said about these “problems” because of “respect” that they had for this “prominent Senator”. Now, I only know a handful of survivors. But even the ones who admired the monsters who abused them before they were assaulted didn’t harbor any admiration for them thereafter. And, in Reade’s case, I would doubt any of them would publicly speak out in support of their abusers 24 years after the alleged assault.

Or unironically promote him as an anti abuse guy.