Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better.
On October 29 2022 02:09 Fleetfeet wrote: God this is so pointlessly disingenuous.
I get that BlackJack is smart. That's not part of the question, but the consistency in just shitty fucking arguments and then trying to 180 into GOTCHA-ing people is just tiring. There's no point to the GOTCHA, it just turns into "A-HA, SO YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE" because someone biffed it on something minor that BJ is doing consistently anyways.
Yeah, no shit I'm doing the same thing. I'm just conjecturing on the necessity of opening/closing schools just as much as anyone else. The difference is I'm not demanding that my position be the default position and then demanding that data be provided the refute my position while offering no data myself. It's not a fucking "gotcha". It's asking someone to be considerate enough to not lecture someone on providing data to support their position while offering zero data yourself just because you can get a posse of 5 other people to agree that your position is the correct "default" one that needs to be disproven.
My issue with that is I've read debates on why closing schools is a "necessary evil" and can fill that data in as support for that argument; I've -had- that argument before. The data is there, if the person bringing up that point doesn't directly link a specific study... sure, that's worse because I don't see the EXACT data they're working with, but it's not exactly a new concept to me so I'll forgive the transgression.
You're making arguments I haven't heard much (Kids made the biggest sacrifice in covid; Kids are the least impacted by covid [directly medically, sure. Otherwise?]; Schools closed so grandma doesn't die and thats stupid) none of which I quote verbatim but all of which are new-ish arguments to me that I don't exactly understand your position on, further reinforced by the idea that you could most certainly pick apart my representation of those arguments as false, WHICH IS FINE but doesn't exactly help me go back and understand what your opinion even was in the first place.
Drone chiming in to try anchor your opinions to a specific idea helps here and there, it just feels like we've gone so far off any actual data because of pages and pages of abuse returned with abuse that everyone's just fucking mad now and nothing useful is being brought forth.
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth.
They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed.
The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open.
Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction.
But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic.
At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions.
The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself.
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Closing schools was one of the most shocking mesures of the pandemic, nobody had any documentation it was effective. Regardless of its effectiveness, it did terrible mental, social and educational damage to a whole generation of youth.
Sweden never closed their schools, and Norway and Denmark opened theirs way earlier than Spain, for example.
You have to dig very deep to find solid data for supporting school closures, and countries not closing schools did remarkably well.
Did the countries that not closed schools do remarkably well despite not closing schools or did they do well, and therefor not have to close schools?
Saying a country did well in handling Covid and didn't close their schools doesn't prove anything since closing schools should only be considered when the country is not handling it well and healthcare is in danger of being overwhelmed.
No, the decision to keep schools open in Sweden was made very early in the pandemic, March 2020. I found a post about it from a Swedish user here, I think Elroi and the reasoning behind it from the health minister. It had nothing to do with how well or unwell the pandemic had been going at that point because at that point it wasn't really "going" at all in most places in the world except certain hotspots.
and I think this is correct more broadly speaking as well. Most "shelter-in-place" type of orders went out in March 2020 along with school closures. Unless you were Italy/Spain/New York/Wuhan, etc. you weren't being devastated by the pandemic quite yet. They weren't responses to how they were faring against the pandemic but more because of how those other places were faring against the pandemic and not wanting to end up like them. Which is perfectly rational.
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
Any type of lesion can be considered "damage", but we don't make a big deal out of every lesion. Myocarditis is not just a lesion.
Did you actually read it?
"The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm, measured on D3 post-vaccination"
"The incidence of myocardial lesions is 2.8% or 800 times higher than the usual incidence of myocarditis"
"No MACE was reported in the population studied at 30 days, however, due to repeated doses, it is interesting to wonder whether this could not lead to long-term sequelae (heart failure, arrhythmia). For this, a randomized trial with long-term follow-up would be necessary."
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Closing schools was one of the most shocking mesures of the pandemic, nobody had any documentation it was effective. Regardless of its effectiveness, it did terrible mental, social and educational damage to a whole generation of youth.
Sweden never closed their schools, and Norway and Denmark opened theirs way earlier than Spain, for example.
You have to dig very deep to find solid data for supporting school closures, and countries not closing schools did remarkably well.
The spread of viruses is very well documented, and coronavirus is no exception. Coronavirus is a virus, and viruses can often spread from an infected individual to a new host by close contact, hence the importance of social distancing when someone is sick with covid:
"Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, for example at a conversational distance. The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe. Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth (droplet transmission). The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols can remain suspended in the air or travel farther than conversational distance (this is often called long-range aerosol or long-range airborne transmission)." https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
A great way to reduce the spread of infection is to keep people further away from each other, by social distancing and temporarily closing certain locations where large groups of packed people tend to congregate:
When many stores, restaurants, and businesses reopened, they took other precautionary measures, such as requiring masks or vaccinations, or sitting groups of people further away from each other, or limiting the number of customers inside at a time. This is so that the chance of spreading an infection is lower, and it's precisely why schools temporarily shut down. I work in a school that has over two thousand students (and a few hundred adults); they can't spread covid between each other if they're all trapped in their own houses.
There is plenty of precedent for this approach of closing schools:
"Closing schools can make a big difference in flattening the curve, evidence from past epidemics shows. A study in Nature in 2006 that modeled an influenza outbreak found that closing school during the peak of a pandemic could reduce the peak attack rate, or speed of spread, by 40 percent. Another study in 2016 in BMC Infectious Diseases found that, based on the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, closing schools could reduce the attack rate up to 25 percent and the peak weekly incidence, or rate of new cases, by more than 50 percent. Even the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 provides some data. Comparing cities that took action with those that did not, researchers reported in a study in JAMA in 2007 that measures like school closings contributed to significant reductions in the peak death rate as well as overall deaths." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/upshot/coronavirus-school-closings.html
European data: "Methods We pursued our objectives by means of a quantitative panel analysis, building a longitudinal dataset with observations from countries in Europe, from 1 January to 30 September, and estimating the impact of school closure via feasible-generalised least-squares fixed effect and random effect estimators, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models. Results Our results show that having schools closed is effective in reducing the number of new cases. Countries that implement closure have fewer new COVID-19 cases than those that do not. This becomes a reality around 20 days after the implementation of the policy. Its efficacy continues to be detectable up to 100 days after implementation. The result is robust to controls for other forms of social distancing. Conclusion Results suggest that school closure is effective in reducing the number of people who are infected with COVID-19. Unlike what has been suggested in previous analyses or with regard to other diseases, its efficacy continues to be detectable up to 100 days after the introduction of the policy." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8660653/
And I sincerely agree with this final quote as well (as we've already covered this, so we shouldn't need to restate the data):
"Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that." ~BlackJack
We're past the "is there data or precedent or good reason to think that separating people will decrease infection rates of viruses" stage, which is why I'm much more interested in the next part: How do we compare (quantify? qualify?) the benefits of school closure (or other protocols) to the drawbacks? Reducing infection rates and saving lives are some of the positives, but businesses shutting down and children struggling academically and socially and emotionally are some of the negatives. There's a lot to unpack with this, but it sounds like you'll need to join the rest of us with at least acknowledging that social distancing was able to reduce the spread of covid; if you disagree with that premise, then I'm not sure how you'll be able to effectively compare benefits and drawbacks (since you'll presumably see no benefits).
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth.
They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed.
The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open.
Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction.
But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic.
At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions.
The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself.
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
I appreciate the clarification and the simplification, and we're in agreement that there are both benefits and drawbacks to the various protocols taken during the pandemic. I'm wondering if this just comes down to a subjective difference of opinion: that I may think that the benefits of closing schools down for longer outweighs the drawbacks, while you believe the reverse. I don't know if there's any way to come to a consensus on this (I'm open to suggestions), and it's why I was hoping that the conversation would have started with something like this (one of the two hypothetical paragraphs I had written a few posts ago):
Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Thoughts? Is it just an "agree to disagree" situation?
On October 29 2022 04:03 Magic Powers wrote: I did read it and I've looked into it already before I posted my first response. Lesions are not inflammations. Can we stop this now?
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
bolded:
from article in french translated to English:
"myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm"
On October 29 2022 04:03 Magic Powers wrote: I did read it and I've looked into it already before I posted my first response. Lesions are not inflammations. Can we stop this now?
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
bolded:
from article in french translated to English:
"myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm"
"Possible subclinical acute myocarditis. Subclinical myocarditis, without specific symptoms, may be inferred by transient increases in troponin "
I don't know why this is hard to understand. There's nothing in the text that equates the lesions to inflammation. Lesions may be required for inflammation, but they don't necessitate inflammation. I would need the confirmation of someone who studies this matter, because we're amateurs, not doctors studying viruses and organs. I'm not willing to accept that myocarditis is actually 800 times more likely than we previously thought until there's definitive proof.
On October 29 2022 04:03 Magic Powers wrote: I did read it and I've looked into it already before I posted my first response. Lesions are not inflammations. Can we stop this now?
Why??
On October 29 2022 03:15 Magic Powers wrote:
On October 29 2022 02:51 Razyda wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
bolded:
from article in french translated to English:
"myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm"
"Possible subclinical acute myocarditis. Subclinical myocarditis, without specific symptoms, may be inferred by transient increases in troponin "
I don't know why this is hard to understand. There's nothing in the text that equates the lesions to inflammation. Lesions may be required for inflammation, but they don't necessitate inflammation. I would need the confirmation of someone who studies this matter, because we're amateurs, not doctors studying viruses and organs. I'm not willing to accept that myocarditis is actually 800 times more likely than we previously thought until there's definitive proof.
First of all correction:
Bolded: it is not 800 times more than what we previously thought, it is 800 times more than it would occur naturally -which is significantly less than 800 times what we thought.
Italic: Text quite clearly states "defined"
Italic2: Fantastic so what you are saying is that everything in this thread except confirmed : "doctors studying viruses and organs" is utter rubbish? which shouldnt be accepted?
I'm not interested in debating this any longer. If you can find a virologist confirming that myocarditis is 800 times more likely than expected, wake me up.
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Oof. Yes keeping schools closed helps reduced the spread. That's an obvious truth, you don't need to provide data on that. Just like keeping schools closed harmed the education and upbringing of children is an obvious truth.
They are competing interests/problems with keeping schools open vs closed.
The problem is that you seem to think that just showing that closing schools helps reduce the spread (obvious truth) is proof-pudding that your stance that schools should have been closed is the correct one but me showing that children's educations being harmed from closed schools (obvious truth) is not proof-pudding that schools should have opened sooner or remained open.
Essentially you are saying that schools being closed is the correct and necessary evil and I have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute this by showing that children's education was harmed more than the benefit in spread reduction.
But if I say the opposite - that schools should have opened sooner and worsening the spread is the necessary evil because the harm to students is too great otherwise and you have to provide the cost-benefit analysis to refute that, then I'm the heretic.
At the end of the day we're both guessing and neither of us are providing a cost-benefit analysis. According to Magic Powers source even the people in charge to make these decisions weren't really doing a cost-benefit analysis to make their decisions.
The difference is I'm not the one lecturing you to remain neutral while not remaining neutral myself.
A) Schools being closed reduces the spread B) Schools being closed harms children's education
DPB: A > B BJ: No, B > A because X
DPB: X does not prove B > A so next time remain neutral unless you have proper data BJ: But you didn't provide anything to support A > B other than saying that A is true.
I appreciate the clarification and the simplification, and we're in agreement that there are both benefits and drawbacks to the various protocols taken during the pandemic. I'm wondering if this just comes down to a subjective difference of opinion: that I may think that the benefits of closing schools down for longer outweighs the drawbacks, while you believe the reverse. I don't know if there's any way to come to a consensus on this (I'm open to suggestions), and it's why I was hoping that the conversation would have started with something like this (one of the two hypothetical paragraphs I had written a few posts ago):
Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Thoughts? Is it just an "agree to disagree" situation?
Depends what we're agreeing to disagree on. For example if you think it's okay to reopen schools if we can anticipate 10% more deaths/hospitalizations and I think it's okay to reopen schools if we can anticipate 30% more deaths/hospitalization (just an example) then sure we can agree to disagree.
But if you think we can't reopen schools because doing so would have caused a catastrophic strain on the healthcare system then no we can't agree to disagree unless you do as I asked before and show some examples of schools that reopened too early and caused such a catastrophic strain. If for example 1,000 schools opened up sometime in 2021 and none of them caused a catastrophe in their health systems then it is safe to assume that the schools that waited until 2022 to reopen could have reopened sooner. The "well those are different areas and proof that one place could do it isn't proof that another could" just doesn't fly. It's like if a basketball player took 1,000 shots and made all 1,000 and then you say there's no reason the believe he is going to make the next shot because the next shot is different than the previous 1,000. I'd say you can be quite confident he can make the next shot too.
On October 29 2022 09:00 Magic Powers wrote: I'm not interested in debating this any longer. If you can find a virologist confirming that myocarditis is 800 times more likely than expected, wake me up.
Bolded: Shocking .
Italic: So "Position:Director Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel" knows nothing about it .
On October 29 2022 04:03 Magic Powers wrote: I did read it and I've looked into it already before I posted my first response. Lesions are not inflammations. Can we stop this now?
Why??
On October 29 2022 03:15 Magic Powers wrote:
On October 29 2022 02:51 Razyda wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
bolded:
from article in french translated to English:
"myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm"
"Possible subclinical acute myocarditis. Subclinical myocarditis, without specific symptoms, may be inferred by transient increases in troponin "
I don't know why this is hard to understand. There's nothing in the text that equates the lesions to inflammation. Lesions may be required for inflammation, but they don't necessitate inflammation. I would need the confirmation of someone who studies this matter, because we're amateurs, not doctors studying viruses and organs. I'm not willing to accept that myocarditis is actually 800 times more likely than we previously thought until there's definitive proof.
I can't be sure but I highly suspect that what you're arguing over is just a poor interpretation by Google translate. "lesions" in this case seems to be used to mean injury/damage and not literal lesions on the myocardium. Otherwise defining having myocardial lesions as having an elevated troponin level makes little sense.
Dr. Prasad offers a good summary in this video
In short, instead of waiting for a patient to have symptoms (chest pain), go to a doctor, and then maybe get a troponin blood test, they decided they were just going to give troponin blood tests to an entire group of people 3 days after they got their booster vaccination. They found that those with elevated troponin levels was many times greater than the risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination. That is not to say they are the same thing as Rayzda seems to be implying. One being actual myocarditis and the other being subclinical myocarditis - i.e. not having any symptoms and only being discovered incidentally from being a part of this study. I think it can be safely assumed that the latter is far more mild than the former which already seems to typically be a mild form of myocarditis. The main conclusion from the author being that this seems to be so minor that it's not likely to be a big deal for a COVID vaccination but if people are being asked to take 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+ COVID shots then maybe there will be a cumulative effect of repeatedly insulting the heart.
The video also points out that Pfizer was supposed to do a similar after-market study of testing troponin levels after vaccination but the FDA has given them years to publish this which seems a bit generous for having as much money as Pfizer has.
On October 28 2022 12:12 BlackJack wrote: @Sermokala
You know I think the first time I ever interacted with you in this thread was when you made this post
On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote: Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem.
and I responded that that wasn't really fair because lots of human beings have all kinds of dumb beliefs and you can't really say they're incompetent at their job based on a single wrong belief like not wanting to get a vaccine.
Then you responded that people not believing in the vaccine in and of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
But that has literally nothing to do with competency which was your point. And no matter how much I tried to explain that to you you just couldn't seem to grasp it. So I just shrugged my shoulders and gave up arguing with someone that doesn't seem to even be aware of the argument they made in order to defend it.
Anyway, days later I found that the original post of yours was something that you just copy pasted from multiple viral tweets that were spread around, for example, this one
Then it made sense to me why you seemed unaware of how to defend your own argument - because you weren't even the one making it and it was just something you ripped off twitter. You didn't actually care to think about whether a teacher that doesn't take a vaccine is competent at their job - you just wanted to jerk off to the knowledge that they are losing their job.
Anyway, I'm sharing this anecdote to say that I wished I was smart enough to realize then that engaging with you is a huge waste of time.
This is wild that you think this is an insult. You literally ignore the things you quote. You've gone from not reading other peoples posts to not reading your own posts now.
I said that they weren't competent to teach be police or be doctors. Having "Dumb Beliefs" is one thing but having them teach those to children is another thing handle peoples health or defend peoples lives. It has everything to do with competency if they fail to do the basic premise of their job.
Just because someone else makes a point doesn't mean that you can't agree with that point. Its also literally not a copy paste. I do care about a teacher being competent at their job that's why I don't want them to be at their job if they're incompetent. I really don't get why you're tripping up on basic things like you making a statement and expecting everyone to suddenly treat it like the truth.
I am aware of the arguments that I'm making, I after all am the one making them. I believe you are aware of the arguments you are making, after all you are the one making them. these are not hard concepts. If you struggle at them then you interacting with others is a waste of time.
You do know there is a difference between not taking the vaccine and teaching children not to take a vaccine, right?? You didn't say teachers should be fired for teaching children vaccines are bad, you said they should be fired for not taking a vaccine. Period. Very poor attempt at deflecting and obfuscating.
In fact you actually said it wasn't about not believing in the vaccine but about not taking the vaccine and spreading COVID.
On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote: Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem.
Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society.
No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do.
They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people.
Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce.
Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job.
Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor.
And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot.
Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon.
Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job.
No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police.
I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
Like I said, has nothing to do with job proficiency or competency. So you couldn't even properly defend the argument you ripped off Twitter.
It does though? If you don't understand basic science or reject the consensus for basic health and safety you are incompetent at your job.
If you are a cop that doesn't care about public safety you shouldn't be a cop. If you're a doctor that doesn't care about the things you tell people to get or not you shouldn't be a doctor. These are basic premises bj that you don't argue with. Simply stateing "nu uh" and treating it like a win is just embarrassing my guy.
It's even more embarrassing that you think it's such a solid dunk to say that someone else would listen to other people and agree with their arguments.
On October 29 2022 04:03 Magic Powers wrote: I did read it and I've looked into it already before I posted my first response. Lesions are not inflammations. Can we stop this now?
Why??
On October 29 2022 03:15 Magic Powers wrote:
On October 29 2022 02:51 Razyda wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote: Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly. What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
As for "very rare" it seems it is no longer the case according to:
Christian Eugen Mueller (Basel, Switzerland): " Myocardial Inflammation/Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Booster Vaccination "
"Apparently, both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have provided non-human animal data on the BA.4/BA.5 boosters to the FDA to state their case for the EUA. But they haven’t yet shown this data to the rest of the scientific community or the public. This data have reportedly included some preliminary findings from eight mice"
Myocardial lesions are not myocarditis. The former are lesions, the latter is an inflammation.
bolded:
from article in french translated to English:
"myocardial lesion, defined by an increase in serum troponin above the norm"
"Possible subclinical acute myocarditis. Subclinical myocarditis, without specific symptoms, may be inferred by transient increases in troponin "
I don't know why this is hard to understand. There's nothing in the text that equates the lesions to inflammation. Lesions may be required for inflammation, but they don't necessitate inflammation. I would need the confirmation of someone who studies this matter, because we're amateurs, not doctors studying viruses and organs. I'm not willing to accept that myocarditis is actually 800 times more likely than we previously thought until there's definitive proof.
I can't be sure but I highly suspect that what you're arguing over is just a poor interpretation by Google translate. "lesions" in this case seems to be used to mean injury/damage and not literal lesions on the myocardium. Otherwise defining having myocardial lesions as having an elevated troponin level makes little sense.
In short, instead of waiting for a patient to have symptoms (chest pain), go to a doctor, and then maybe get a troponin blood test, they decided they were just going to give troponin blood tests to an entire group of people 3 days after they got their booster vaccination. They found that those with elevated troponin levels was many times greater than the risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination. That is not to say they are the same thing as Rayzda seems to be implying. One being actual myocarditis and the other being subclinical myocarditis - i.e. not having any symptoms and only being discovered incidentally from being a part of this study. I think it can be safely assumed that the latter is far more mild than the former which already seems to typically be a mild form of myocarditis. The main conclusion from the author being that this seems to be so minor that it's not likely to be a big deal for a COVID vaccination but if people are being asked to take 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+ COVID shots then maybe there will be a cumulative effect of repeatedly insulting the heart.
The video also points out that Pfizer was supposed to do a similar after-market study of testing troponin levels after vaccination but the FDA has given them years to publish this which seems a bit generous for having as much money as Pfizer has.
Thanks a lot for helping clarify this. It seemed obvious that these two conditions are not the same or of the same severity, but it's good to have it confirmed. It's a bit like the difference between a total car crash and a cracked window. Both falls under "damage", but only one carries a high chance of death. Razyda seems to think he can correctly read and interpret scientific text when in fact he's misinforming himself and others. A good example for why science interpreters and communicators matter so much these days and are going to play an increasingly important role in society.
EPT
.
