Lots of covid around me and lots of ivermectin 🤷‍♀️

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, kbutton said:

And my middle of the road friends tell me to relax. Huh? They tell me social media is poisonous. But they aren't saying this to the people *actually lying on social media.* Or if they are, they are lumping the informed in with the ignorant and saying it's healthier to be blissfully unaware because people would be willing to change their minds if they just thought a little harder.

I see this a lot too, and in a way it's true. It's really hard to see what's happening and not become angry, frustrated, and even somewhat misanthropic. Ignorance really is bliss, as long as it doesn't end up killing you or your loved ones. As long as ignorance is only hurting other people, it's an easy choice — and by the time it damages people you care about it's too late.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Corraleno

[kbutton]

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I see this a lot too, and in a way it's true. It's really hard to see what's happening and not become angry, frustrated, and even somewhat misanthropic. Ignorance really is bliss, as long as it doesn't end up killing you or your loved ones. As long as ignorance is only hurting other people, it's an easy choice — and by the time it damages people you care about it's too late.

And honestly, it's time-consuming, and I am only reasonably well-informed, not tip top shape informed.

Also, people think that if I get passionate about it, I must be consumed by it. I do get consumed from time to time, but it's not constant. Right now, I'm not even particularly perturbed when I type all of this out because I've had time to settle in for the last year. I am not enmeshed in an outrage machine, but people seem to think I am.

It feels like gaslighting when people tell me what I'm seeing is not worth being upset about.

I watched someone from my old church (a nurse!) individually tag 90+ people asking them to fast and pray for our state legislature to pass a law making it illegal for employers to require or even document the vaccination status of their employees for any vaccine at all. Don't want to vaccinate for rubella but want to work with pregnant women? Great! Sign up. I pointed out for those who probably didn't read it when they were tagged exactly what was in the bill. Crickets. I pointed out how this is not pro-life, and you'd think I was the devil himself. I pointed out the tyranny of this and got laughed at. A LOT of middle-of-the-road people were tagged on this and were silent, ignored, or supportive because FREEDUMB. Even if they didn't agree, it was more important to not be mean or superior or infringe on someone's freedom (even if it's not infringing on freedom).

It's totally fine for this women to promote DEATH in a pro-life space, but I am not okay to point that out. And I am not supposed to be passionately upset about that because it's unhealthy.

This is just one example. It's very, very dangerous.

[BronzeTurtle]

49 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Well, media literacy is a thing. There are some in-between sources that are more casual that aren't outright bad sources, you just need to realize they are filling their page, not being super stringent (newsy, but not news and not really conspiracy theory; blogs). Other sites are so bad that it's like reading junk mail, and it should be obvious!!! I see people post "news stories" that are just random rants on a message board, not news, and they should know this. I push back on it. They get offended. In about 2 minutes, I can often show them that the site is not even a real site. They DON'T CARE. This includes teachers that should have some media literacy skills. It's stunning. If you can't find an About section on the site, that's usually just really, really bad, and if you don't know that, you really shouldn't be on the internet.

Then there is the group that just doesn't want to have to fact check everything. You can sometimes talk and reason, but they just blow things off and say stuff like, "Who really listens to that banana head anyway?" Well, um, most of our friend group does. That's literally the only middle of the road group I really know. The ones that *think* this is not happening. They are people that don't live on social media. But they don't realize how much of the attitude that comes their way about verifiable news stories is tainted and slanted because they trust that *their* friends aren't being sucked in. So, it's indirect.

Early on, I was seeing stuff amplified that had hashtags in common, and that is one thing that cued me in. If there is a hashtag, there is a movement. A lot of people don't even notice or know. Much of the discernment is knowing what kinds of dog whistles your crows is susceptible to either from bias or fear. I KNOW my crowd thinks everything is about the End Times and satanic stuff (everything was satanic in the late 80's and early 90's, except it wasn't). And this is even outside the group that doesn't know they are being inundated with subtle Q amplifiers. These are just their issues they lose their minds over. So, yeah, if someone from that group is suddenly seeing End Times alert, I roll my eyes and take a closer look. They get scared, clutch their pearls, and pass on information. They haven't learned to be discerning when the stakes are low and refuse to think they could be being manipulated when the stakes are high. They think they were right about the satanic stuff in the 80's and 90's and don't realize their sources were majorly discredited.

At various times, those things have been true. Not everyone is talking about it being easy for two years, easy right now, or feasible right now. Sometimes they are ranting about what people didn't do. Sometimes they are talking about doing those things during a surge. I see tons of balance with mental health concerns, putting food on the table, etc. I see concerns about doing the right thing for those who have no choices. 

I think there were systems-wide failures that potentially could've prevented this from being as big of a pandemic. At one point, I took my friend for a follow-up for a surgery she had. They will still restricting their Covid questions to China when the news was full of other countries having outbreaks. They could just ask, "Have you traveled lately?" They do that NOW. That certainly could've helped a great deal. Multiply that times other failures, and it's a legit complaint. Once the cat is out of the bag, I agree--the pandemic will run it's course. But we can make it better or worse. 

 

so okay, no, i don't think this could have been prevented to be "not as big of a pandemic" (not even sure how to quantify that) given that it was circulating for months, likely globally, and likely in many animal species, before health authorities even admitted to person-to-person transmission and people were encouraged to go to large gatherings right as it was gaining steam (in the US at least). i feel pretty strongly about this because i think it was where the split started. people who thought we could have just done the right things and contained a highly contagious respiratory virus when it was already widespread globally. this is where I think media literacy is largely meaningless as a concept. even now with vaccines and therapies we can't stem it. but we could have stemmed it before we knew nothing and China didn't want to admit it existed until late 2019, much less tell people it was spread like the common cold and incubated for up to 14 days. that we could have stemmed that with different screening questions or more testing of some kind? by the time the Chinese admitted it there were likely too many cases here (i'm in the US currently) to even contact trace effectively. that is magical thinking and i think reflective of some kind of media consumption that tells one otherwise. sure, an individual who never leaves home and gets everything delivered can avoid covid, but not the people who do the deliveries, not the people who make the food, etc., etc. for the most part i think these ideas will fade as more people who are triple vacced and mask all the time get covid despite being in places with vaccine passports and all that and they realize it isn't a moral failing or lack of action/caution that catches the virus. it isn't because policies weren't followed or weren't strict enough. as Aus and NZ leave strict lockdowns and cases rise we see it isn't even sustainble for them, they only put off the inevitable for a relatively short time.

i think a whole masterclass on media literacy on that npr article that coraleno shared could be given. It made sure to highlight stats from kansas, mississippi, kentucky. so does it make one ask what states they didn't look into or report on? does it confirm ones biases about ignorant southerners/midwesterners? does that mean there was no ivm poisoning in states california, ny, or washington? surely its only happening in red states, right? they make sure to say that ers are getting slammed with ivm poisoning cases, but don't say where or cite figures. the doc from mississipi indicates from their own poison control center only one person was sent to get medical attention due to horse meds. the only specific article i could find on ers getting slammed was fact checked as false. people see an article about feed stores running out of ivm and assume it's dumb people taking it instead of say, people stocking up for their animals in case of tighter restrictions or backlash. there's no talk of how desperate people must feel, how unable they might feel to have access to good healthcare before resorting to something like that, to take some kind of vet med to the point of sickness, and then call poison control because they feel so awful. there is almost a tone of them getting their just deserts. it's kind of funny, really, that i'm being lectured on media literacy and i'm the only one offering an actual fact check on what is obviously a narrative (not good journalism) to confirm that those who use ivm are dumb hicks eating horse paste (and this is a widespread problem, so much so that it is adding another burden onto the medical system) and unwilling to vax rather than objective facts. but that is the line we're doubling down on and taking me to task for bringing up!

did people do dumb things with vet meds because of what they read online about ivm? i have no doubt that happened. npr doesn't have to convince me. i have done dumb things with meds (meant for humans) in my lifetime because i was in pain and scared. do I think it might possibly be that people give that stuff clicks so it sells so a lot of articles got run on it without maybe all the facts at hand but definitely confirming something about large groups of people we already thought were contemptible and dumb? yup. that's not a conspiracy because I have the luxury of sitting here and reading the posts furthering those ideas and stretching them out to include racism and such. regardless of where people are politically (which I've been told is a no-no here anyway), it is just bad public health policy to other those you are trying to get to do the things. shame has never worked as ph policy anywhere for any disease. when i initially posted it was to offer some balance of, hey, the people i know who took this thing aren't idiots, but because someone read an npr article and sees single or even double! digits of people in certain states doing dumb stuff to get them sick, it has to be that my take that maybe people aren't black and white entities to be shamed or lauded is to be dismissed.

i honestly feel so out of touch with progressives (i think?) saying some people aren't worth reaching, there's no sense in trying to find the middle way or even considering there might be large, majority groups of people that don't want to hear how dumb they are, or are scared, or want to try what they can when they are sick...that it must be these dumb evil people who made us all sick in the first place. it's just very saddening to me to think this is how everyone thinks of everyone else. my stereotypes was honestly that that was mostly a fundamentalist position.

 

well, crap, this is way too long. if only i got paid for writing here. instead i'm actually losing time!

[BronzeTurtle]

17 minutes ago, kbutton said:

 

It feels like gaslighting when people tell me what I'm seeing is not worth being upset about.

 

on this we can agree.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

I didn't "double down" on the MS numbers, I pointed out why they were misinterpreted to begin with, and I provided links to other articles that included other stats. And the fact that 70% of ivermectin poisoning calls were from people who took the animal version still proves the point that many people are in fact taking horse wormer. Here's a link to the actual data from the National Poison Data System stating there were 1140 calls to poison control centers for ivermectin poisoning between January and September 2021. Not that actual poisoning is even the main issue with ivermectin.

The fact that you chose to hyperfocus on a single data point that is in no way foundational to the rest of the argument, and ignore everything else, is telling. One statement from one state's poison control center was poorly worded and widely misinterpreted, ergo the use of ivermectin, including veterinary forms, often in lieu of vaccination or other genuinely efficacious treatments, is not a real problem. Let's pretend that multiple talking heads on the most popular cable news station in the US, as well as many of the most popular talk radio "personalities," are not actually promoting this drug along with antivax messages and conspiracy theories to millions of viewers and listeners; that farm supply stores across the country aren't really complaining they can't keep it in stock because so many people are buying it for covid; that US Congressmen like Ron Johnson and Louie Gohmert are not actively promoting both the drug and the conspiracy theories; that Pierre Kory did not actually testify before Congress that his protocol can prevent 75% of covid deaths, which was a total lie; that no one is actually dying because they believed they didn't need a vaccine since ivermectin and vitamins will cure them; that no one is harassing HCWs or suing hospitals to demand treatment with bogus "protocols" that include ivermectin.

Since some employee at the MS poison Center did not word one particular statement very well, we can safely assume that none of the rest of it is real, that nearly everyone who takes ivermectin has carefully weighed the data and is taking it under a doctor's supervision with no ill effects, and that those who claim otherwise are just close-minded and biased. Because that's way less uncomfortable than confronting the reality of what is happening in this country.

I told you your claim was wrong and asked for other data. you shared an article that had very little information in the way of actual data and doubled down on the misinformation while using it as a talking point to claim how misinformed, dumb, and dangerous other people are. i used that as a jumping off point for a larger discussion about bad journalism. 

edited because i was rude, but i will change it to this: I think you are speaking in hyperbole and atributing things to me i did not say and greatly oversimplifying the issue i'm highlighting here, particularly with your last paragraph, but all of it really.

you have continually, almost trollishly, brought up people and ideas no one is asserting or even thinking about in this thread, least of all me. i get you are not a troll and people agree with you more than me, or so the dopamine buttons would indicate, but it is not something i can respond to given I don't believe it or think it or hold to any of it as my own positions as regards to ivm or the pandemic in general. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by BronzeTurtle

[Cordelia]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

I am going to beat this dead horse some more.

I thought that people around me did their research. I was part of a church as a young married adult where the pastor was pretty good at riding out these issues--when the war on terror started, he would educate us on just war theory and things like that...well, we had a speaker come once. We were so lucky to have him! He grew up in xyz culture that he's discussing but also has advanced theological degrees! We're so lucky to have him speak here!!! Years later, it turns out he's a fake. Crickets--no one went back and said so. Things just went on.

This kind of stuff makes me feel duped, so I tend to be super skeptical now. I was earnest, and now I am jaded. Everyone else is just head in the sand. That's not okay. I feel like I am required to be jaded so that people can feel free to be happy and unconflicted. 

I resent it, frankly. 

ETA: And these people are supposed to be "my elders and my betters" as they used to say. They are supposed to be mentoring me; I'm not supposed to be teaching them how to be not stupid. At this point, they probably wouldn't even listen to me if I corrected a wrong phone number they post on their church website. It's unreal. 

And my middle of the road friends tell me to relax. Huh? They tell me social media is poisonous. But they aren't saying this to the people *actually lying on social media.* Or if they are, they are lumping the informed in with the ignorant and saying it's healthier to be blissfully unaware because people would be willing to change their minds if they just thought a little harder.

Horse puckey.

Was this speaker Ergun Caner, by any chance? 

[kbutton]

38 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

i honestly feel so out of touch with progressives (i think?) saying some people aren't worth reaching, there's no sense in trying to find the middle way or even considering there might be large, majority groups of people that don't want to hear how dumb they are, or are scared, or want to try what they can when they are sick...that it must be these dumb evil people who made us all sick in the first place. it's just very saddening to me to think this is how everyone thinks of everyone else. my stereotypes was honestly that that was mostly a fundamentalist position.

Yes, it's quite clear I am a progressive and that I've not tried to reach people. You've got me pegged! Congratulations!

I just documented multiple ways that not dumb people around me shredded their credibility, posted nonsense, and betrayed THEIR OWN VALUES, but whatever. Lol, lol, lol!!! 

I am not angry at the ignorant and people who are maybe not dumb, but don't have a lot going for them in life. I am not talking about them. I am also not upset with people who are just so stressed they can't think straight. 

To modify that meme where Santa asks the mom what she wants for Christmas.

Mom: I want a unicorn.

Santa: There are no such things as unicorns. What else do you want?

Mom: A mysterious set of Covid non-denier deniers who are perfectly reasonable but ignored.

Santa: Let me work on that unicorn.

[kbutton]

50 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

but we could have stemmed it before we knew nothing and China didn't want to admit it existed until late 2019, much less tell people it was spread like the common cold and incubated for up to 14 days. that we could have stemmed that with different screening questions or more testing of some kind?

Hmmm. NZ, anyone? Until recently, Australia? I guess we've just been imagining their response for the last year and half. IIRC, Australia was having high profile cases before the US, and they still managed to somehow keep a lid on it for a long, long time.

[kbutton]

41 minutes ago, Cordelia said:

Was this speaker Ergun Caner, by any chance? 

Yes, though that's not the only one that has breezed through the larger community--during all the satanic scares, there was a comedian who was supposed to be a former satanist. At some point, you start to question if the real grownups have a hand on the till and realize you are the grownup now. In the middle, you're just busy with littles and thinking, "Hmm...they kind of got that wrong...but they're great people!"

Fun times!

I need to listen again because I was distracted at the time, but I think David French and Curtis Chang talk about that moment on their Good Faith podcast when they've each realized they are the grownup left needing to speak into a space--being old enough, experienced enough, and having enough influence to be able to speak up. They were encouraging us all to do that. Sadly, I am persona non grata in all the spaces I've occupied in my adulthood because I won't get on board with their shift in politics, don't homeschool the same way (I get my kids identified and get them help with their learning/developmental issues! What rot! They're just late bloomers!), etc. I honestly feel like I've largely wasted 20 years barking up the wrong tree. I used to be listened to in one of those spaces as someone who had a really thoughtful take on things (even validated as my spiritual gift!). In the other space, not so much because I didn't do the right things then either. You know, I was supposed to birth standardized children that don't disrupt your entire life and make you look incompetent as a human because you have to choose between, you know, keeping them alive or keeping your house clean. And if you do choose to parent them vs. keep your house clean, you're doing the wrong thing. You should just pick up a copy of Growing Kids God's Way. 

Burn it down. It's corrupt to the core and needs to be rebuilt on the foundation of Jesus, not whatever this is. We just didn't realize that it wasn't built on Jesus to start with. You can't AWANA your way out of a cultural disregard for truth. 

[desertflower]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

And honestly, it's time-consuming, and I am only reasonably well-informed, not tip top shape informed.

Also, people think that if I get passionate about it, I must be consumed by it. I do get consumed from time to time, but it's not constant. Right now, I'm not even particularly perturbed when I type all of this out because I've had time to settle in for the last year. I am not enmeshed in an outrage machine, but people seem to think I am.

It feels like gaslighting when people tell me what I'm seeing is not worth being upset about.

I watched someone from my old church (a nurse!) individually tag 90+ people asking them to fast and pray for our state legislature to pass a law making it illegal for employers to require or even document the vaccination status of their employees for any vaccine at all. Don't want to vaccinate for rubella but want to work with pregnant women? Great! Sign up. I pointed out for those who probably didn't read it when they were tagged exactly what was in the bill. Crickets. I pointed out how this is not pro-life, and you'd think I was the devil himself. I pointed out the tyranny of this and got laughed at. A LOT of middle-of-the-road people were tagged on this and were silent, ignored, or supportive because FREEDUMB. Even if they didn't agree, it was more important to not be mean or superior or infringe on someone's freedom (even if it's not infringing on freedom).

It's totally fine for this women to promote DEATH in a pro-life space, but I am not okay to point that out. And I am not supposed to be passionately upset about that because it's unhealthy.

This is just one example. It's very, very dangerous.

I hope you found a new church.  It doesn't sound healthy. 

[desertflower]

Bronzeturtle and Corraleno - you guys are just going to have to agree to disagree soon. 

[kbutton]

6 minutes ago, desertflower said:

I hope you found a new church.  It doesn't sound healthy. 

Not yet. There are plenty of healthy people in both of my former churches, but they aren't in a position to get the wrong end of the deal. They can just gloss over the flaws without being bitten. They are the people that tell me I'm not alone or not wrong, but this is their community, and no church is perfect, etc. It's so frustrating. 

 

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

Hmmm. NZ, anyone? Until recently, Australia? I guess we've just been imagining their response for the last year and half. IIRC, Australia was having high profile cases before the US, and they still managed to somehow keep a lid on it for a long, long time.

their strategies work unless they want to open their countries again ever. as soon as they do, then they are right where the rest of us are. yes, you can keep it out for a long time, probably forever, just like an individual person can keep from getting sick if they never leave their house and sanitize everything coming in and quarantine every house guest.  

 

eta: it seems greatly unscientific to me to assert  that the us/europe/africa/swa could have possibly implemented the same strategy to an effect of zerocovid. for a couple of things, the us (among other nations) has many thousands of immigrants arriving in country each month that we can't test or trace. we have millions of animals with covid in the wild.

like i said, i think we read different media if your contention is that there could have been a lid on it in the us for any length of time since it was widespread to the point of a pandemic likely before we even knew to test people. likely long before china told us about it. we aren't an island, we don't have the government structure that allows for people to be restricted to their homes for any serious length of time, etc., etc. we can't shut down our borders to any great effect. we can't shut down state lines or use the military to monitor house lockdowns. it's just untenable.

Edited January 7, 2022 by BronzeTurtle

[BronzeTurtle]

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

Yes, it's quite clear I am a progressive and that I've not tried to reach people. You've got me pegged! Congratulations!

I just documented multiple ways that not dumb people around me shredded their credibility, posted nonsense, and betrayed THEIR OWN VALUES, but whatever. Lol, lol, lol!!! 

I am not angry at the ignorant and people who are maybe not dumb, but don't have a lot going for them in life. I am not talking about them. I am also not upset with people who are just so stressed they can't think straight. 

To modify that meme where Santa asks the mom what she wants for Christmas.

Mom: I want a unicorn.

Santa: There are no such things as unicorns. What else do you want?

Mom: A mysterious set of Covid non-denier deniers who are perfectly reasonable but ignored.

Santa: Let me work on that unicorn.

You posted that you argued with people online and told them they were wrong and not pro-life and then tagged multiple people in arguments and were surprised they said nothing and/or referred to their concerns as freedumb. that's not really what i'm talking about at all and isn't really suprising to me that your efforts found you frustrated both with them and now with me for suggesting perhaps your approach might not be in good faith.

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by BronzeTurtle

[kbutton]

9 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

You posted that you argued with people online and told them they were wrong and pro-death and then tagged multiple people in arguments and were surprised they said nothing and/or referred to their concerns as freedumb. that's not really what i'm talking about at all and isn't really suprising to me that your efforts found you frustrated both with them and now with me for suggesting perhaps your approach might not be in good faith.

Good to know that you are aware of the tone, spirit, and actual wording of posts you've never seen. Do you really think that I used the term Freedumb with them? I'm not an idiot. 

I am also often trying to persuade people that are watching the posts, not the person posting. I am trying to find those people that are not yet down the road to ridiculousness and educate them. 

Sometimes, I am simply making a fact check. Nicely. 

Regarding the bolded, apparently I am stupid because I hadn't caught on to the fact that you think I am not acting in good faith. Thanks for making that clear. If you don't think I am acting in good faith, I will feel free to stop commenting on your posts even if you quote me. There is no point. To be clear, I haven't at any point in this conversation thought you were acting in bad faith, nor was I frustrated with (just bewildered that you are so happy to argue on behalf of a demographic that is basically fictional in my local population). Have fun, but I have zero reason to talk to you after your clarification. 🙂 

[KSera]

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

Hmmm. NZ, anyone? Until recently, Australia? I guess we've just been imagining their response for the last year and half. IIRC, Australia was having high profile cases before the US, and they still managed to somehow keep a lid on it for a long, long time.

While I don't think we could have implemented NZ or Australia style control, the fact still remains that the US has done very poorly when it comes to minimizing deaths per capita. We have had a shocking number of deaths and it didn't have to be that high. Many other countries have done better handling it. The huge portion of the population that has not gotten vaccinated and that refuse to mask or take other mitigation measures is one major factor in that. There is a very, very strong overlap between that population and the ivermectin consuming population, which is part of the big frustration that so many have with that whole thing.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 minute ago, kbutton said:

Good to know that you are aware of the tone, spirit, and actual wording of posts you've never seen. Do you really think that I used the term Freedumb with them? I'm not an idiot. 

I am also often trying to persuade people that are watching the posts, not the person posting. I am trying to find those people that are not yet down the road to ridiculousness and educate them. 

Sometimes, I am simply making a fact check. Nicely. 

Regarding the bolded, apparently I am stupid because I hadn't caught on to the fact that you think I am not acting in good faith. Thanks for making that clear. If you don't think I am acting in good faith, I will feel free to stop commenting on your posts even if you quote me. There is no point. To be clear, I haven't at any point in this conversation thought you were acting in bad faith, nor was I frustrated with (just bewildered that you are so happy to argue on behalf of a demographic that is basically fictional in my local population). Have fun, but I have zero reason to talk to you after your clarification. 🙂 

i replied to your words of how you said you engaged and what happened in the coversations. what else am i supposed to go by? and now you're insulted that i said you weren't acting in good faith by using belittling terms, so then you're telling me you were actually very nice to them but use the term 'freedumb' behind their back to describe their views?

maybe we just have a difference of what 'good faith' means when we're having a conversation with someone or engaging in debate. but yeah, if you're just nicely/politely engaging with me here and then calling me names or belittling me on some other forum and consider that 'good faith', then please feel free not to reply at all. no hard feelings, it is just arguing on the internet after all.

[BronzeTurtle]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

While I don't think we could have implemented NZ or Australia style control, the fact still remains that the US has done very poorly when it comes to minimizing deaths per capita. We have had a shocking number of deaths and it didn't have to be that high. Many other countries have done better handling it. The huge portion of the population that has not gotten vaccinated and that refuse to mask or take other mitigation measures is one major factor in that. There is a very, very strong overlap between that population and the ivermectin consuming population, which is part of the big frustration that so many have with that whole thing.

are you saying our cfr/ifr are significantly higher than other places? or you're saying we should have done better at preventing people from getting it entirely? it's weird to me because when i look at deaths per capita by state states with more or stricter restrictions don't seem to be doing measurably better than states with few or no restrictions and policies. maybe you meant some other stat than per capita deaths?

i don't know about the overlap between anti vacc and ivm, i haven't seen a lot of data on that. would be an interesting study i suppose.

[kokotg]

39 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

their strategies work unless they want to open their countries again ever. as soon as they do, then they are right where the rest of us are. yes, you can keep it out for a long time, probably forever, just like an individual person can keep from getting sick if they never leave their house and sanitize everything coming in and quarantine every house guest.  

 

 

We might want to wait to see how mortality shakes out in Australia and New Zealand before declaring that there was no long term benefit to waiting until the population was mostly vaccinated before opening everything up. Right now the US is sitting on 2562/million deaths vs 89 in Australia, so we have a pretty substantial head start. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

24 minutes ago, KSera said:

While I don't think we could have implemented NZ or Australia style control, the fact still remains that the US has done very poorly when it comes to minimizing deaths per capita. We have had a shocking number of deaths and it didn't have to be that high. Many other countries have done better handling it. The huge portion of the population that has not gotten vaccinated and that refuse to mask or take other mitigation measures is one major factor in that. There is a very, very strong overlap between that population and the ivermectin consuming population, which is part of the big frustration that so many have with that whole thing.

Some states have done better than others. Some areas in a state do better than others. Those that have done better are the ones that have taken Covid seriously. Have stressed masking and other protective measures- sometimes in mandated forms. It’s not someone’s politics that protects someone- it’s masks and social distancing and vaccines. No, it’s not 100% protection. No one ever said that it would be, even before omicron changed things up even more. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Jean in Newcastle

[TravelingChris]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:51 AM, BlsdMama said:

It totally IS a thing.  It sidelined an important treatment for ALS in it's third trial.  The placebo effect within the mind is far more powerful on healing than we currently realize.

It is too bad that I don't have that ability (placebo effect).  After all, I have been given drugs that didn't work and I never thought they worked/

[Pawz4me]

9 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

It is too bad that I don't have that ability (placebo effect).  After all, I have been given drugs that didn't work and I never thought they worked/

There's also a nocebo effect.

(Not saying that's what you experienced, of course. Just pointing out that, like the placebo effect, it is a thing. The brain is a powerful organ.)

[TravelingChris]

On 1/5/2022 at 11:27 AM, KSera said:

For me personally, if I had a case of Covid that started to go south and my doctor prescribed ivermectin, I would be suddenly very concerned that I had a doctor who didn’t know what they were doing and weren’t up on what actually works and I wasn’t going to get proper treatment to get better.

I talked with my doctor and he told me that if I got COVID (back in the summer when we had Delta), that he would get me to get the monoclonal antibodies because I am high risk.

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

are you saying our cfr/ifr are significantly higher than other places? or you're saying we should have done better at preventing people from getting it entirely? it's weird to me because when i look at deaths per capita by state states with more or stricter restrictions don't seem to be doing measurably better than states with few or no restrictions and policies. maybe you meant some other stat than per capita deaths?

i don't know about the overlap between anti vacc and ivm, i haven't seen a lot of data on that. would be an interesting study i suppose.

I was referring specifically to deaths per capita, though there are other measures we could use as well. I disagree on the second part of what you say about not seeing a difference in states with different measures. When I've looked at that, it appears there is some pretty good, though certainly not perfect, correlation. Certainly when you look at how different areas have done since vaccines were available, there are large differences in per capita death rates that correlate strongly with vaccination rates and other mitigation measures.

14 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Some states have done better than others. Some areas in a state do better than others. Those that have done better are the ones that have taken Covid seriously. Have stressed masking and other protective measures- sometimes in mandated forms. It’s not someone’s politics that protects someone- it’s masks and social distancing and vaccines. No, it’s not 100% protection. No one ever said that it would be, even before omicron changed things up even more. 

Oh definitely. 100% agree.

[Corraleno]

47 minutes ago, kokotg said:

We might want to wait to see how mortality shakes out in Australia and New Zealand before declaring that there was no long term benefit to waiting until the population was mostly vaccinated before opening everything up. Right now the US is sitting on 2562/million deaths vs 89 in Australia, so we have a pretty substantial head start. 

Our per capita death rate is one of the worst in the world, the only countries with higher death rates are Eastern Europe/Balkans plus Brazil & Peru. 

40 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Some states have done better than others. Some areas in a state do better than others. Those that have done better are the ones that have taken Covid seriously. Have stressed masking and other protective measures- sometimes in mandated forms. It’s not someone’s politics that protects someone- it’s masks and social distancing and vaccines. No, it’s not 100% protection. No one ever said that it would,  be even before omicron changed things up even more. 

Top 10 states for per capita deaths are Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, NJ, Louisiana, NY, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Georgia. NY and NJ were disproportionately affected at the very beginning of the pandemic when there was barely any testing and we didn't know how to treat it, but the rest of those states generally have low vax rates (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have vax rates of 48-50%), no mask mandates, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, Vermont has the highest vax rate in the country (78%) and the lowest per capita death rate.

Oregon and Washington, which have high vax rates and high compliance for masking and distancing, are ranked 45th & 46th for death rate, and even within those states the counties with lower vax rates and lower compliance have higher death rates than the counties with higher vax rates and higher compliance.

My county has 73% of the total population fully vaxed (82% of 12+) and nearly 100% masking, and the per capita case rate is 1 in 1,334. The rural counties in the same state with vax rates in the 30s & 40s have case rates that range from around 1 in 200 to 1 in 500.

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Corraleno

[TravelingChris]

46 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Some states have done better than others. Some areas in a state do better than others. Those that have done better are the ones that have taken Covid seriously. Have stressed masking and other protective measures- sometimes in mandated forms. It’s not someone’s politics that protects someone- it’s masks and social distancing and vaccines. No, it’s not 100% protection. No one ever said that it would be, even before omicron changed things up even more. 

No, a lot of the states that have done better are not the ones who did most of the making and closing down.

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

No, a lot of the states that have done better are not the ones who did most of the making and closing down.

How so? It's not a perfect trend line, but the relationship is pretty strong:

36 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Top 10 states for per capita deaths are Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, NJ, Louisiana, NY, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Georgia. NY and NJ were disproportionately affected at the very beginning of the pandemic when there was barely any testing and we didn't know how to treat it, but the rest of those states generally have low vax rates (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have vax rates of 48-50%), no mask mandates, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, Vermont has the highest vax rate in the country (78%) and the lowest per capita death rate.

Oregon and Washington, which have high vax rates and high compliance for masking and distancing, are ranked 45th & 46th for death rate, and even within those states the counties with lower vax rates and lower compliance have higher death rates than the counties with higher vax rates and higher compliance.

 

[BlsdMama]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

It is too bad that I don't have that ability (placebo effect).  After all, I have been given drugs that didn't work and I never thought they worked/

I agree in wishing it had worked for me.  I received an intial different diagnosis of a mimic from Mayo and received three extensive treatments (IVIG, rituximab, and plasmapheresis) but nothing worked.  That said, what happened in the Nurown study (3rd trial) of ALS patients shows what many have believed for a long while and that is the mind believing positively does have an affect on health, even in diseases like ALS. It was/is very odd and while I'm glad for those who had positive time in trial, it actually skewed the results so that we are literally (as a community) begging for a fourth trial rather than starting over from scratch with this therapy (an approximately six year plan which would be a death sentence for almost all of us.)

[Lori D.]

"...Top 10 states for per capita deaths are Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, NJ, Louisiana, NY, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Georgia..."

Additional factors not discussed in this thread that increase risk of severe/fatal covid*:
- age (65+) -- 80% of deaths, 23x greater risk of death
- obesity -- 3x hospitalizations, 1.42x severity/death
- ethnicity
(Native American 1.6x cases, 3.3x hospitalizations, 2.2x deaths)
(Hispanic/Latino 1.6x cases, 2.5x hospitalizations, 2.1x deaths)

* = vaccinations reduce risk for high risk groups as well as non-high risk groups; however, even for the vaccinated, current numbers for hospitalizations/deaths from severe break-through cases are running at about 15% for vaccinated, mostly in the elderly and obese groups

In that list of top 10 states with highest per capita death rates, some of those states have larger percents of populations that are at higher-risk for severe/fatal covid cases -- obesity, ethnicity, and age:

adult obesity rates (NY & NJ at about 25% adult obesity)
#1 = Mississippi (39.7%)
#2 = West Virginia (39.1%)
#3 = Alabama (39.0%)
#4 = Louisiana (38.1%)
#9 = Arkansas (36.4%)
#13 = Tennessee (35.6%)
#17 = Georgia (34.3%)
#31 = Arizona (30.9%)

[#43 - Oregon = 28.1%; #44 - Washington = 28.0%; #46 - Vermont = 26.3%]

ethnicity rates by state (other states below 11.5% combined Native American + Latino & Hispanic)
- Arizona = 35.7% (5% NA + 30.7% L&H)
- New Jersey = 22.29% (0.69 NA + 21.6% L&H)
- New York = 20.27% (1.07% NA + 19.2% L&H)

[Vermont = 3.85% Washington = 15.9% Oregon = 15.9%]

elderly (65+) population rates (other states ranged 17.8% down to 14% in elderly population)
#3 = West Virginia (20.9%)
#12 = Arizona (18.5%)

[#4 - Vermont = 20.6%; #11 - Oregon = 18.6%; #43 - Washington = 16.2%]

Edited January 7, 2022 by Lori D.

[Ceilingfan]

I don't have any data whatsoever, but my anecdata suggests that even among relatively vaccine-ambivalent groups, the elderly are much much more likely to have gotten vaxxed and boosted asap than the young. I wonder if that's true across states to some degree or not? Like, is a 50 percent vax rate vs a 75 percent vax rate indicative of the vax rates of the elderly (who make up the vast majority of deaths), or is it more like 90 percent of the elderly vaxxed in one area vs 97 percent in another?

For some reason in my anecdotal experience, overweight or obese people are not as eager to vax as old people, assuming their general politics are the same. I'm not sure if that's reflected in statistics across the US either, though.

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, Ceilingfan said:

I don't have any data whatsoever, but my anecdata suggests that even among relatively vaccine-ambivalent groups, the elderly are much much more likely to have gotten vaxxed and boosted asap than the young. I wonder if that's true across states to some degree or not? Like, is a 50 percent vax rate vs a 75 percent vax rate indicative of the vax rates of the elderly (who make up the vast majority of deaths), or is it more like 90 percent of the elderly vaxxed in one area vs 97 percent in another?

For some reason in my anecdotal experience, overweight or obese people are not as eager to vax as old people, assuming their general politics are the same. I'm not sure if that's reflected in statistics across the US either, though.

The gap between states is definitely much smaller in the 65+ age group — it ranges from a low of 82-84% (Arkansas and Alabama) to a high of 99.9% (Vermont, RI, Maine, Minnesota, Delaware). In the 18-64 group, the range is from a low of ~50-52% (Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi) to a high of ~80-82% (RI, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, NY). So there is a 32 percentage point gap between the highest and lowest vax rates in the 18-64 group, but only a 18 percentage point gap in the 65+ group.

(Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker)

[TravelingChris]

3 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

I agree in wishing it had worked for me.  I received an intial different diagnosis of a mimic from Mayo and received three extensive treatments (IVIG, rituximab, and plasmapheresis) but nothing worked.  That said, what happened in the Nurown study (3rd trial) of ALS patients shows what many have believed for a long while and that is the mind believing positively does have an affect on health, even in diseases like ALS. It was/is very odd and while I'm glad for those who had positive time in trial, it actually skewed the results so that we are literally (as a community) begging for a fourth trial rather than starting over from scratch with this therapy (an approximately six year plan which would be a death sentence for almost all of us.)

Yeah, I knew it didn't work for me because tylenol never did a bloody thing to me to get out of pain and that is from when I was7.  Also, though normally antibiotics work for me, I have had to have them twice in the last ten years changed to another one for my infections because the first didn't work on the bacteria. 

I am so extremely sorry there is still no treatment for ALS. My mother died from it in 1986.  

[Happy2BaMom]

11 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Since some employee at the MS poison Center did not word one particular statement very well, we can safely assume that none of the rest of it is real, that nearly everyone who takes ivermectin has carefully weighed the data and is taking it under a doctor's supervision with no ill effects, and that those who claim otherwise are just close-minded and biased. Because that's way less uncomfortable than confronting the reality of what is happening in this country.

Your well-thought responses are helpful, but every time I read them, I can't help but be reminded of Brandolini's Law. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."

Edited January 7, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Faith-manor]

5 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Your well-thought responses are helpful, but every time I read them, I can't help but be reminded of Brandolini's Law. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."

So true!!!!