• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Covid-19 miscellany

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has done little to protect inoculated five- to 11- year-olds from infection, data revealed by New York state officials on Monday shows. Researchers at the New York State Department Health gauged infection rates of minors who have had the Pfizer jab made available to them. Children were split into two age groups, one of children five to 11 and the other for children 12 to 17. They found that the two-dose Pfizer shot was only 12 percent effective at preventing infection in the younger age group only one month after receival. 'I think we need to rethink this whole program of vaccinated adolescents and children. What is our objective?’ Dr Cody Meissner, the chief of pediatrics at Tufts Children's Hospital in Boston and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, told DailyMail.com. Meissner has been a critic of the idea that all children need to be vaccinated, since they face little risk from the virus itself while also suffering a risk of some serious side-effects like myocarditis.
Click to expand...

Daily Mail
 
southernhybrid said:
In case any of you don't know about it, if you live in the US, the CDC has a new link that you can get information regarding the risk of COVID in the county where you. live. Unfortunately, I live in a fairly high risk county, due to our low vaccination rate. So, people in my county should continue to wear masks when indoors. My sister lives in NJ in a low risk area that has a much higher vaccination rate. If you live in a low risk area, it's considered safe to go maskless when indoors.

All you need to do is put in your state and county and the information will come up. Have fun!


https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tr...tates&list_select_county=13255&data-type=Risk
Click to expand...

I used to check there a lot. Checking a county in MA and another in NJ. This is when my former employer started the "must come back to the office 3 days a week" policy. Cases fell below a specified level so the requirement went into effect. Then of course cases skyrocked and I'd inform HR of the high case numbers and ask about them rolling back the requirement. They never did. It's one reason I disliked the new CEO. The covid lying.

In any case, HR and he are probably angry about that. Whatever. I knew I was retiring, they knew it, and was permanently remote regardless of policy.

Actually, off topic, when the company changed benefits for 2022 we were being fed some sugar coated version of worse health insurance. On a Zoom my wife was encouraging me to call them out because they couldn't retaliate in any way against me. Others weren't as free to speak up.
 
Metaphor said:
EDIT: I spent extra time putting in white space to format it properly but the displayed output removes it :-(
Click to expand...
That's how HTML works--whitespace is whitespace, it doesn't have a quantity. Even if it allowed the extra whitespace to remain you couldn't line it up because you have no guarantee of what font the target system is using. To get things to line up you either need tables or specifying a monospaced font. I have not attempted to figure out to what extent this is feasible in this software.
 
Some of the control freaks having a hard time letting go;

Major cities like San Francisco and Chicago are refusing to budge on school mask orders despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revising orders last week to remove indoor mask recommendations from both cities and peer-cities like New York opting to remove guidelines in recent days. San Francisco, a major blue city that has had some of the strictest pandemic measures over the past two years, is currently still not budging on its school mask mandate. The controversial policy remains in place despite Mayor London Breed, a Democrat, and California Gov Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, both voicing that it is time to lift these types of measures. Chicago is emerging as another outlier. While the rest of Illinois has dropped masks from schools, and the Windy City itself has chosen to drop vaccine and mask mandates for adults, Chicago Public Schools issued an advisory Monday that children would still have to wear masks in the classroom.
Click to expand...

Daily Mail
 
I understand your confusion TSwizzle. You see, the trouble is these school districts are actually going to feel responsible for any sickness or harm that could occur based on the changes in the masking policy. These things are called "empathy" and "responsibility" (I linked definitions you might want to read up on). While the likelihood of serious illness isn't high for children, it is certainly more possible for teachers. Additionally, Omicron has made Covid-19 incredibly easy to spread, which while the risk to children isn't high, risk of spread with unmasked children will be high.

So school districts are struggling to determine the prudent path that sees to:
  • the protection of teachers/staff and children
  • maintaining a sustainable health and safety plan that ensures schools STAY OPEN.
I know you also aren't aware of it, getting all your news from oily British rags, but some of these districts are also getting information from parents of the students as well. Many parents can't afford for another classroom shut down (need to work!) and are quite willing to allow masks to continue a bit further to ensure the risk of shutdowns (whether a class or a school or just a quarantine) is even less likely. I know in Akron, they are doing exactly this right now as they look to how to transition to a not-post Covid-19 world. .
 
TSwizzle said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I understand your confusion TSwizzle.
Click to expand...
I'm not confused Jimmy.

The anti-science control freaks are having a hard time letting go.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of speak that comes from the guy that knows everything and the second you try and put him in charge, he goes blank faced. You've clearly never dealt with risk mitigation in your life in any sort of professional setting. And your bias is forcing you to make ridiculous conclusions about the motives of people that are going to be responsible for the decisions they make and how they impact their schools / school systems.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
This is the kind of speak that comes from the guy that knows everything and the second you try and put him in charge, he goes blank faced. You've clearly never dealt with risk mitigation in your life in any sort of professional setting.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about that.

Jimmy Higgins said:
And your bias is forcing you to make ridiculous conclusions about the motives of people that are going to be responsible for the decisions they make and how they impact their schools / school systems.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about their motives or what drives their decisions but it's certainly not science.
 
TSwizzle said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
This is the kind of speak that comes from the guy that knows everything and the second you try and put him in charge, he goes blank faced. You've clearly never dealt with risk mitigation in your life in any sort of professional setting.
Click to expand...
You are wrong about that.
Click to expand...
You must be real bad at it then. Or maybe in the professional world, you aren't blindly partisan.
TSwizzle said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
And your bias is forcing you to make ridiculous conclusions about the motives of people that are going to be responsible for the decisions they make and how they impact their schools / school systems.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about their motives...
Click to expand...
All of your posts about people trying to create mitigation plans on dealing with the pandemic has made it pretty clear you are sure of their motives.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
You must be real bad at it then. Or maybe in the professional world, you aren't blindly partisan.
Click to expand...

Good enough that I earn a decent living out of it.

Jimmy Higgins said:
TSwizzle said:
I am not sure about their motives or what drives their decisions but it's certainly not science.
Click to expand...
All of your posts about people trying to create mitigation plans on dealing with the pandemic has made it pretty clear you are sure of their motives.
Click to expand...

In some instances the motives are more apparent than others but whatever the case here, it's not science. Probably control freaks.
 
Yipes! That'd be something. Based on former smokers being in much worse shape in the study, looks like it is possible something in the cigarettes was inhibiting Covid-19. The improvement, however, went up to a certain number of cigarettes a day, then dropped down a bit.

Regardless, this is more than lice medication had going for it, so start smoking anti-vaxxers, I mean freedom smokers.
 
I remember when doctors recommended Camel cigarettes to soothe the throat.
Tom
 
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

So the article about the Pfizer vaccine reverse transcribing into cancerous liver cell DNA in vitro, is most likely not understood by most of the people talking about it.

But doesn't the J&J vaccine do something like that and also viruses in general? The vast majority of the time it is not a problem, right?

Does this article in any way show that Pfizer was "lying" about mRNA not affecting DNA? Even on a somatic, non zygotic level?

I am a dumb ass, but I doubt this is what the article says.
 
I will say that if there is any or no "truth" about "OMG, this affects DNA" in the article it will only be shown by very specialized experts. Hopefully a few of them can relay dumb downed explanations.

Not even by people who know quite a lot about biology. The mistakes they will likely make will be in a football analogy by like saying that cornerbacks are on offense and tight ends are on defense.
 
repoman said:
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line

So the article about the Pfizer vaccine reverse transcribing into cancerous liver cell DNA in vitro, is most likely not understood by most of the people talking about it.

But doesn't the J&J vaccine do something like that and also viruses in general? The vast majority of the time it is not a problem, right?

Does this article in any way show that Pfizer was "lying" about mRNA not affecting DNA? Even on a somatic, non zygotic level?

I am a dumb ass, but I doubt this is what the article says.
Click to expand...

Bad paper.



I like how she will work tiktok memes into her posts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom