EmseB
-
Posts
5,796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by EmseB
-
-
Here's the thing, once you see QAnon, QAnon is everywhere. Friends, neighbors, associates...QAnon. They are everywhere, and also...nowhere. The good thing is that once you've identified their true modus operandi like all of you have done here, it is very hard for them to hide in plain sight. The tells -- anti-pedophilia, anti child trafficking, sometimes you see Gadsden flag here or there (no step on snek) indicating a commitment to "liberty" or "patriotism".
That's the bad news.
The good news is that through protected sources on Twitter, I found out that Q himself will soon be indicted by SDNY. Probably looking at the death penalty for high treason, but maybe hard labor in a CIA blacksite.
I will probably have to join those with deleted accounts after this post. Yes, that was also QAnon exposing everyone's private information for their own purposes. WTM is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Stay frosty, ladies.
🤫🤐
-
12
-
-
I like mpix, if you're just talking printing a photo to canvas or something like that. Just, if you do wrapped canvas, keep borders in mind.
-
1
-
-
Well, I can see being able to log back in was not entirely beneficial for my blood pressure. Y'all enjoy your conspiracies. I gotta find a place where people don't think the virus is a global plot to kill off the elderly OR a hoax created by Bill Gates where people only die with covid, not from it. It's probably not the internet I'm seeking!!
-
1
-
-
Just now, Corraleno said:
You missed the point — it's obviously not a global conspiracy, because most other countries are not trying to kill off their old and disabled. Most other countries are trying to prevent deaths, not shrug them off as good for economy.
But isn't most of Europe seeing a second wave? Like 100k cases reported in a day at some point this week? Are they also trying to kill off their old people for the sake of the economy? Was that the plan for South America or India? They were all killing their old and vulnerable people for their economies? This has to be a massive conspiracy that is still ongoing, even in countries that were previously said to be doing much better than the US, no? I mean, she was talking about a deliberate plan to kill the olds. Thats pretty nuts, IMO, and it also, conveniently, means that anyone who disagrees with you (general) on policy is downright evil.
I also don't understand referring to the economy as an abstraction. That's how people eat and have shelter and stay alive...like we can't survive without an "economy"? Certainly people can't stay in their homes without, for example, people providing utilities, taking away garbage, processing meat and vegetables, delivering take out, delivering books and entertainment??
-
7
-
-
16 minutes ago, MissLemon said:
The plan is for all those drains on medicare, social security, and other public programs to shuffle off this mortal coil. It's been the plan the whole time.
Where is that tinfoil hat emoji when needed??
I mean, this would have to be a global conspiracy, no?
It strikes me as the other side of the coin of people saying the entire virus and lockdowns are a hoax perpetuated by governments the world over.
Now it is governments the world over are trying to kill off their old and disabled?
What if it is a bad virus that kills an alarming number of vulnerable people that is neither a sinister plot to kill said people, nor a sinister hoax to destroy the global economy?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, mathnerd said:
I read about the fake signatures on that Great Barrington thing and dismissed it all as another hoax. I just learned that it is real news ... So, off to read about it now ...
It is a thing.
-
2 hours ago, Spy Car said:
Herd immunity through vaccination isn't the same as "herd immunity" through active infection. Right?
One would save a lot of lives, the other would kill millions of Americans.
Bill
Right. But I'm never sure what people mean when they say herd immunity strategy, because it isn't a strategy, it's what happens when enough people gain immunity to hamper transmission, no?
My thought was that this admin was trying to "warp speed" the vaccine development because they wanted to reach herd immunity via a vaccine for as many people as possible. I had not heard they abandoned that in favor of a natural immunity strategy, which is why the original post confused me.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Katy said:
I first heard this yesterday, and there's been nonstop reporting about it since. Here's a few links, but there are hundreds if you google 'white house herd immunity.'
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/13/world/coronavirus-covid
Oh, the Great Barrington thing? I didn't hear anything from the admin directly about it, but I do confess to watching mostly confirmation hearing stuff these days so have been in a bit of a news bubble.
I do follow doctors on social media who have a mix of opinions on the GBD, so I have heard of that, just not the WH comments on it. Sorry for not understanding!
ETA: Also, like I said before, my state and county have set testing and tracing policy, as well as any lockdown policies, so I don't know how federal policy could possibly override that unless through the courts. The president can't open or close anything here or keep the states and counties from testing and tracing. But I understand now that wasn't your original question. I am trying to cook dinner and post at the same time!!
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Katy said:
I've seen two CDC confirmed reinfection cases because the first person had been in a study and they could show the genetic strain was slightly different than the original infection, which means that anecdotal reports that many people have been reinfected are more likely to be true. Those reports were previously dismissed as the prior infection re-emerging, which is why it was thought that the second occurrence was worse.
Everything I've read has said that immunity to other corona virusus generally don't last longer than 90 days, which was why Dr Fauci suspected that eventually Coronavirus will circulate yearly like the flu, rather than ever getting eradicated.
I've personally seen no indication that the person had an immune compromise. Instead I've seen people who claim they are healthy and because they got over it the first time they would be fine the next time too. But I don't follow the daily news and speculation like some people so I may be way off base.
I have seen that antibodies wear off in about 3 months. I haven't seen anything about immunity wearing off that quickly at all. But it does wear off at some point, I think. But, afaik, our immune system retains some memory cells even after that point so that we are not totally naive to any given virus once we've had it, even if it mutates.
To the bolded, I'm not sure that I can draw that conclusion at all, but I would appreciate any reading you might have on that score.
I'm not an immunologist, obviously, just that I've not heard what you're saying here. I have heard specifically that one of the reinfections was in a person on heavy chemo so they had no b-cells (or something of that nature).
-
2 minutes ago, Katy said:
Eventually that is what a vaccine will do. But at this point the While House is acknowledging their plan is to let as many people as possible catch it ASAP and either die or get the economy back to normal.
Link? Idk how this works, I guess, because the county I'm in, and the county I lived in previously in a different state both set their own test and trace policy, and the states decided opening levels for businesses, etc. It isn't a federal issue.
-
2
-
-
As far as reinfection, I don't really know except that I think I read most other coronaviruses have immunity lasting at least a year, maybe 3 or 4 and the reinfections we're seeing publicized now (2?) were in immune compromised people. Are you seeing more reports?
-
-
Hasn't the strategy always been herd immunity? As in, isn't that why they've been trying to get a vaccine so quickly? I honestly think containment/eradication was out of the question by January, so I'm not sure what other strategy any country is pursuing at this point, except NZ and a couple other small countries, but even they are eventually going to go to herd immunity when the vax comes out, afaik.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:
I’m not missing the point at all. There is NOTHING that comes out of this administration that I would trust absent external verification and certification and, breaking long-standing precedent, JAMA agrees. Nothing about the interference we’re seeing in research, approval processes, or medication advocacy is normal. I hope we never see it’s like again. I hope it’s unnecessary. BTW—did I quote/send for you? I don’t think I did.
I am free to respond on a message board? To anyone? Wth?
The administration doesn't put out vaccines. So it's not coming out of this administration. The data from phase III trials globally doesn't come out from this White House.
Of course we've seen nothing like this before because we haven't had a pandemic like this in our lifetimes, haven't had such an urgent need for a vax, and haven't really confronted how prospective loss of capital and bureaucracy confound drugs and vaccines getting to market. I mean, the administration has put more dollars into vax research, removing red tape, and speeding progress to hopefully put the brakes on a virus thats killed over 200k people here and that is supposed to be a fault??? If they were *not* putting money into it and not removing government barriers to quicker approval they would be criticized for that, no? I'm not a Trump voter or supporter, so that doesn't even enter into it. I admit to being a bit cynical that vax roll out won't be botched like with H1N1, but that has nothing to do with efficacy or safety.
Again, the US is not the only country doing research or trying to get a vax out. A govt official here in the states has already said (today?) that they won't accept the vax reaearch coming out of the UK either. Denigrating the work of scientists and vax progress worldwide now because ??reasons?? is going to have long lasting repercussions for vaccination rates in the future.
If we want to make an argument for not taking the vax because of efficacy and safety that seems to be a reasonable, pro-science argument.
-
1
-
-
On 10/8/2020 at 3:53 PM, Sneezyone said:
I cannot speak for everyone but my objections are based on the interference of political appointees in decision making about the COVID vaccine trials and emergency/trial certification standards. They have, like a lot of other issues, dumbed things down, repeatedly lied, and undermined science (most notably with the efficacy of universal masking, severity of the illness, and airborne transmission). You are on an island, practically alone, in your view of this administration’s trustworthiness. That’s ok, of course, to each his/her/their own. No one’s gonna be guilted into taking the Trump administrations word on anything tho, not even WRT the weather...especially the weather. Sharpie anyone? JAMA literally endorsed the other guy. First time in 250+ years. 🤣
You seem to be missing my point entirely. I don't trust the administration. I don't trust any administration. I am willing to trust the data that comes out in the vaccine trials. The problem is exactly that people are letting their distrust of Trump undermine the actual science and data while giving legitimacy to anti-vax conspiracy theories. This has repercussions beyond the current occupant of the White House.
As for JAMA, a bunch of scientists literally getting political is not good for the scientific community, no matter if it confirms my priors about any particular politician or not. I think perhaps those who are responsible for running major medical journals should look at getting their own houses in order and making sure what they are publishing wrt to various actual medical studies is accurate before branching out into political activism.
-
10 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:
These concerns are being raised by extremely pro vax virologists and epidemiologists. In fact that’s one of their major concerns. If gov bends laws to push through an unsafe vax it’s going to set back public trust in vaccine by years.
The concerns, as far as I can see, are political, based on US politics, and not based on looking at data from trials (that isn't even available yet!). It is denigrating the work before it's done and validating anti-vax conspiracy theories and is poisoning the well before we know anything about the vaccines themselves, and is actively discouraging an already wary public from getting a vaccine based solely on speculation. The US isn't even the only country developing or approving vaccines for use! Even if Trump had some final say about the science in the US (he doesn't), he doesn't have input for many, many other countries, some of whom are developing their own vaccines.
The basic idea I see is that life shouldn't return to normal without a vax, but we shouldn't trust the science on a vax before late Jan because politics, and not even then if the right person doesn't get elected in the US. It is not about the science and the fact that some scientists would inject politics into this issue like this before data is even available or decisions are made is deeply problematic.
I am not for bending the rules. I am very much against, for example, what Russia and possibly China are doing wrt to a vaccine. I am for looking at the phase iii data and letting scientists make evaluations and recommendations regardless of who is in the white house.
I think any virologist or epidemiologist who is saying Trump is a problem for vaccine trustworthiness is ruining their reputation because that's not how vaccine development works. That's not how any of this works. And they know it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:
preprint study only but up to 50 pc reduction in sperm volume and motility in men 30 days after a case of moderate to severe Covid. Post-mortem tests in those who died showed moderate to severe changes to testicular cells that assist in sperm development.
obviously
I know that everyone is studying covid right now, and I'd have to Google to be sure, but I'm almost positive this has been studied to happen with any illness with a fever. As in, fever for a few days can affect sperm production for awhile (months?).
-
Not related to long term masking behavior (which, for me, whatever, I'll do it where it's required until people stop), but the turn of this thread is disturbing.
I am extremely worried that anti-vax rhetoric is being given a foothold where it otherwise would not.
The whole argument that the government is covering up bad data or outcomes is the same trope that people who don't vaccinate their kids with *any* vaccines trot out time and time again (it dovetails nicely into "read the package insert! See how dangerous they are! The government knows and is giving them to us anyway!"). And if we get a Biden admin, nothing about what is happening with approval or trials of covid vaccines will change. Nothing. The scientists developing the vaccines aren't going to change in January, the data in the trials isn't going to change, the efficacy or lack thereof isn't going to change, and for people to be spreading this anti-vax nonsense and because of politics is super irresponsible, IMO.
I'm just super peeved that all my anti-vax friends suddenly now have a soapbox to climb on and are being legitimatized by political cynicism. Trump is not making a vaccine, nor approving it. His administration has authorized tons of money so that one can be studied and produced without companies risking losing millions of dollars on something that might not work so that trials are conducted at a faster pace.
If you don't want a specific vax because of the efficacy or trial data, don't take it. I'm all for informed consent. But please stop spreading anti-vax nonsense about government conspiracy and denigrating the hard work of actual, reputable scientists on something extremely important because of who is or is not occupying the white house.
This concludes my TED talk and I don't know if I'll be able to log in again tomorrow because I keep getting booted off, so this may be the last I say on this subject for a week.😆
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Quill said:
Yes, I definitely do agree with this. I actually think - though it is a number with bad superstitions - 13 would be terrific. That would be a nice possibility for balancing of ideologies.
But if a president is adding more justices to the court, they aren't doing it to "balance ideologies". They are putting justices on the court that they think will rule in their favor.
-
11
-
-
45 minutes ago, Catwoman said:
Honestly, I do think there would have been a huge difference if people would have started masking and taking other precautions back in February or March. I think there would have been far fewer cases of the virus, and far fewer deaths, as well.
Some of us were taking Covid seriously from early on, but the majority of people were not — often because of the messaging from the government that sought to minimize the dangers of the virus. And it came back to bite us.
Yes. There is an eerie YouTube supercut out there of what politicians were saying at the time (Feb and early March) and it is chilling. I honestly don't know how SF didn't see a huge spike like NY given the messaging to get out and celebrate in the city, etc.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:
I totally agree re: the performance of NJ. The entire NE, in fact, is a model of what can be accomplished. Not that other states are paying any attention.
Just going to leave this here and say the data don't really bear that out. Either it's good the other states weren't paying attention or they learned from the NE mistakes. Either way, saying they are a model of what can be accomplished turns my stomach considering their death rate comparatively.
It strikes me every time I see this that the other states flattened the curve that the NE got, and yet.
-
1
-
-
Current favorite is Half-baked Harvest. She's on Instagram but has a couple cookbooks too.
-
We got it a couple weeks ago at Rite-Aid, except for the baby who has to be done at the ped's office when he gets his 12 mo shots next week.
I would get the shot regardless,, buy especially with so many people in the house, and a baby, anything I can do to reduce risk of incidence or severity of any disease seems way worth it, IMO.
-
2
-
-
My views have changed on this as I got older.
I think it's the same as wearing a bra and panties, so I don't think it's appropriate personally, but it is okay socially and culturally for the most part and I have bigger fish to care about frying so I don't really give it a second thought when other people do it.
-
4
-
It makes sense now
in The Chat Board
Posted
That is just what they want you to think. I'm afraid to reply more in case they got to you.