Coronavirus

[Mr._Clark]

I've been pondering over how we got to this point, with nonsensical opposition to COVID vaccines and mitigation measures. This is an older article, but it's still valid, IMO.

How Republican Coronavirus Vaccine Opposition Got to This Point - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

As I understand it, historically, anti-vax attitudes were very much on the fringes of both the left and the right. On the left, we had naturopathic "medicine" that eschewed modern practices. On the right it was primarily fundamentalist religious (and erroneous) interpretations of scripture that fed anti-vax mindsets.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mainstream on both sides of the political spectrum seemed to be onboard with sensible public health policies. But then, the right found that they could create a wedge issue that they could (cynically and irresponsibly) exploit. Trump, wanting all the credit for any progress against COVID, started undermining the experts who knew what they were talking about while playing footsie with the lunatic fringe. Right-wing parties in other countries - including my own - took note.

The rest is sad history.

It's interesting how history repeats itself. This article from October 2020 accurately predicted that the anti-vaxxers would recycle strategies from 135 years ago:

>>>As a historian of medicine, it’s become clear from researching the history of vaccines that those who promote anti-vaccination consistently use a standard set of strategies. Although it can be hard to see patterns of argument in the modern context, looking back at a historical instance of epidemic and misinformation provides a useful case study for revealing today’s recurring anti-vaccination strategies.<<

Here are the strategies listed in the article:

-Minimize the threat of a disease

-Claim vaccine causes illness, is ineffective or both

-Declare vaccination is part of a larger conspiracy

-Use alternative authorities that legitimize your argument

COVID-19 anti-vaxxers use the same arguments from 135 years ago

The history of anti-vaccination theories can help us understand how such claims capture a popular following. The same misinformation used against 19th century smallpox vaccine is still in use today.

theconversation.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

It's interesting how history repeats itself. This article from October 2020 accurately predicted that the anti-vaxxers would recycle strategies from 135 years ago:

>>>As a historian of medicine, it’s become clear from researching the history of vaccines that those who promote anti-vaccination consistently use a standard set of strategies. Although it can be hard to see patterns of argument in the modern context, looking back at a historical instance of epidemic and misinformation provides a useful case study for revealing today’s recurring anti-vaccination strategies.<<

Here are the strategies listed in the article:

-Minimize the threat of a disease

-Claim vaccine causes illness, is ineffective or both

-Declare vaccination is part of a larger conspiracy

-Use alternative authorities that legitimize your argument

It seems as if there is always some segment of the population that is inclined to believe the antivax fear-mongering, and there are also always at least some politicians that are willing to play along for perceived political gains.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

The important bit (bold italics mine):

Findings
Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8–7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42–49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105–118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021.

 

[mtrot]

How is one to have a rational argument with someone that peddles in alternative facts, Orwellian doublespeak and otherwise live in an alternative reality? I know that discussing concepts like freedom, democracy and human rights with authoritarian/fascist people is not going to change their mind.

Thus my quote in an earlier reply to you:

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.

Hmm, maybe your Inigo quote is yet another example of leftist projection! And perhaps your Inigo quote perfectly applies to people like you, with respect to the definition of fascism. The modern Democrat Party is becoming more fascist as they go, in their attempts to control the flow of information and events in the US. Fascism involves government control of industry, and we see that the DOJ and FBI were actively involved in coercing social media platforms(Twitter, most notably) to squelch freedom of speech and thought, by banning certain individuals from being able to express opinions and transmit information they didn't like. I'm glad it is all now going to be coming out in congressional hearings, as we need to know exactly what went on.

Also, people living in an "alternate reality" is certainly not the sole domain of some people on the right. It seems that about half of the "progressives" these days believe that a "trans" woman is actually a woman and men can have babies, etc.

Now, I am certainly not anti-vax, having received three Moderna shots. And, as I think I stated earlier here, I agree that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives could have been saved if more people had gotten the covid shots. I personally have urged a number of people to get vaccinated for covid.

I think we just have a different opinion as to how much authoritarian government control is or was justified in the US for a respiratory virus with an ~1% mortality rate. Other countries with lesser constitutional individual civil liberties can pretty much do what they want.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Hmm, maybe your Inigo quote is yet another example of leftist projection! And perhaps your Inigo quote perfectly applies to people like you, with respect to the definition of fascism. The modern Democrat Party is becoming more fascist as they go, in their attempts to control the flow of information and events in the US. Fascism involves government control of industry, and we see that the DOJ and FBI were actively involved in coercing social media platforms(Twitter, most notably) to squelch freedom of speech and thought, by banning certain individuals from being able to express opinions and transmit information they didn't like. I'm glad it is all now going to be coming out in congressional hearings, as we need to know exactly what went on.

Also, people living in an "alternate reality" is certainly not the sole domain of some people on the right. It seems that about half of the "progressives" these days believe that a "trans" woman is actually a woman and men can have babies, etc.

Now, I am certainly not anti-vax, having received three Moderna shots. And, as I think I stated earlier here, I agree that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives could have been saved if more people had gotten the covid shots. I personally have urged a number of people to get vaccinated for covid.

I think we just have a different opinion as to how much authoritarian government control is or was justified in the US for a respiratory virus with an ~1% mortality rate. Other countries with lesser constitutional individual civil liberties can pretty much do what they want.

So, which is it? Are the Democrats leftist or fascist? The terms are mutually exclusive.

 

[Trell]

Hmm, maybe your Inigo quote is yet another example of leftist projection! And perhaps your Inigo quote perfectly applies to people like you, with respect to the definition of fascism. The modern Democrat Party is becoming more fascist as they go, in their attempts to control the flow of information and events in the US. Fascism involves government control of industry, and we see that the DOJ and FBI were actively involved in coercing social media platforms(Twitter, most notably) to squelch freedom of speech and thought, by banning certain individuals from being able to express opinions and transmit information they didn't like. I'm glad it is all now going to be coming out in congressional hearings, as we need to know exactly what went on.

Also, people living in an "alternate reality" is certainly not the sole domain of some people on the right. It seems that about half of the "progressives" these days believe that a "trans" woman is actually a woman and men can have babies, etc.

Now, I am certainly not anti-vax, having received three Moderna shots. And, as I think I stated earlier here, I agree that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives could have been saved if more people had gotten the covid shots. I personally have urged a number of people to get vaccinated for covid.

I think we just have a different opinion as to how much authoritarian government control is or was justified in the US for a respiratory virus with an ~1% mortality rate. Other countries with lesser constitutional individual civil liberties can pretty much do what they want.

You really don't what socialism, communism and fascism is, do you?

Once upon a time, decades ago, we had in Norway high school students spending a year in USA in exchange programs. So, in my class we a new class mate who had been to USA for a year, which he loved, btw. One story he told is the following, and reminds me of you:

"At his US school some students wanted to have a new soda/vending machine, but it was not free, so they asked other pupils if they wanted to contribute to buy it. That worked well until someone said this is socialism/communism. The end result was no soda/vending machine. We laughed and thought the objection was dumb."

Over here in Europe we do have a much better grip on what those terms actually means, in general. We have bona fide socialists and communists that calls themselves exactly that, even fascists (but that face has changed, though).

The US Democrats are not seen as socialist in Europe but more or less as social democrats leaning to the right, and Democrats like AOC probably would be a more left-leaning social democrat, but not a socialist.

 

[Trell]

So, which is it? Are the Democrats leftist or fascist? The terms are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, from a Scandinavian point of view the terms used by many Americans are somewhere between funny and rolleyes, but also at times deeply ignorant.

I gave an old story of mine in a post above, but to give another example: Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is socialist/communist, according to Republicans. In reality it's the free market alternative to a single payer system once pushed by conservatives (American Enterprise Institute, if I recall correctly) and the precursor is implemented by the Republican Governor Romney in Massachusetts. In some sense one could call Obamacare Romneycare. And I've never even been to that continent and still knows this, though I would love to visit it some time.

Of course, this is compulsory:

 

[Swerd]

I think we just have a different opinion as to how much authoritarian government control is or was justified in the US for a respiratory virus with an ~1% mortality rate. Other countries with lesser constitutional individual civil liberties can pretty much do what they want.

It is neither authoritarian nor unconstitutional for local, state, or the federal government to take emergency measures in response to public health emergencies, such as happened during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Cities, states, and the federal government do have the right to mandate vaccination, wearing masks to check a viral pandemic, as well as take other public health measures. This has been done in the past, is supported by local laws and court systems, and has been legally reviewed and supported three times by US Supreme Court decisions.

• Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905)
• Zucht v. King (1922)
• Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/coronavirus.117055/page-288#post-1498819

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/do-vaccine-refusers-have-an-ethical-duty-to-pay-for-their-own-covid-care.122521/page-3#post-1489237

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/coronavirus.117055/page-354#post-1528549

A fourth decision took place in 1991, in Philadelphia local courts. It was never appealed, and stands today.
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/do-vaccine-refusers-have-an-ethical-duty-to-pay-for-their-own-covid-care.122521/page-2#post-1489179

 

[mtrot]

It is neither authoritarian nor unconstitutional for local, state, or the federal government to take emergency measures in response to public health emergencies, such as happened during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Cities, states, and the federal government do have the right to mandate vaccination, wearing masks to check a viral pandemic, as well as take other public health measures. This has been done in the past, is supported by local laws and court systems, and has been legally reviewed and supported three times by US Supreme Court decisions.

• Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905)
• Zucht v. King (1922)
• Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/coronavirus.117055/page-288#post-1498819

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/do-vaccine-refusers-have-an-ethical-duty-to-pay-for-their-own-covid-care.122521/page-3#post-1489237

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/coronavirus.117055/page-354#post-1528549

A fourth decision took place in 1991, in Philadelphia local courts. It was never appealed, and stands today.
https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/do-vaccine-refusers-have-an-ethical-duty-to-pay-for-their-own-covid-care.122521/page-2#post-1489179

Well, my point is that we have a different opinion as to how much and for how long governmental control is justified and/or constitutional in a situation like this covid pandemic. Yes, they can issue states of emergency in response to a public health threat. But the question is, for how long? Is there no limit to these powers? If there is no limit, and they are denying constitutional rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, which they did, then our rights have been abrogated, which is not acceptable.

For how long did covid constitute a public health emergency that justified vaccine mandates, lock downs, and other measures? There has to be a limit. And it does become authoritarian at some point, if the emergency is clearly over and the strictures are kept in place, as I believe they were in many places in the US.

 

[Trell]

Well, my point is that we have a different opinion as to how much and for how long governmental control is justified and/or constitutional in a situation like this covid pandemic. Yes, they can issue states of emergency in response to a public health threat. But the question is, for how long? Is there no limit to these powers? If there is no limit, and they are denying constitutional rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, which they did, then our rights have been abrogated, which is not acceptable.

For how long did covid constitute a public health emergency that justified vaccine mandates, lock downs, and other measures? There has to be a limit. And it does become authoritarian at some point, if the emergency is clearly over and the strictures are kept in place, as I believe they were in many places in the US.

Now you’re moving the goal posts and furiously hacking the poor straw man.

In a post on the previous page I linked to an article about a woman infected with tuberculosis that refused treatment and isolation.

Here is the link to my post. Please read and come back and say what should have been done.

Coronavirus

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride. Lol, well, if you're talking about the word, freedom, it's clear that the quote applies to you!

forums.audioholics.com

 

[mtrot]

Now you’re moving the goal posts and furiously hacking the poor straw man.

In a post on the previous page I linked to an article about a woman infected with tuberculosis that refused treatment and isolation.

Here is the link to my post. Please read and come back and say what should have been done.

Coronavirus

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride. Lol, well, if you're talking about the word, freedom, it's clear that the quote applies to you!

forums.audioholics.com

No, not at all. It was probably multi-resistant TB, which is a very dangerous bacterial infection for anyone, regardless of individual characteristics, such as age and general health status, while covid poses a relatively small risk of severe illness or death for much of the population. Your interesting article highlights how serious a health concern TB is, relative to covid-19, often requiring a year or more of treatment with various antibiotics to clear it. So, I'd say your example of this non-compliant woman is not a valid comparison to the covid situation.

 

[Trell]

No, not at all. It was probably multi-resistant TB, which is a very dangerous bacterial infection for anyone, regardless of individual characteristics, such as age and general health status, while covid poses a relatively small risk of severe illness or death for much of the population. Your interesting article highlights how serious a health concern TB is, relative to covid-19, often requiring a year or more of treatment with various antibiotics to clear it. So, I'd say your example of this non-compliant woman is not a valid comparison to the covid situation.

Are you not aware, after all this time, how many people have died from COVID in USA, and you just dismiss it as “a relatively small risk of severe illness or death for much of the population”? Many, many, many,…, many more deaths and illness from COVID than from tuberculosis which is by far, far, …, far less contagious.

By just taking a proven safe COVID vaccine you’ve very much increased your chances of avoiding serious illness and death. You’ve taken them yourself so you know how easy it is.

This just shows the hollowness of your claims as they are: empty.

 

[mtrot]

Are you not aware, after all this time, how many people have died from COVID in USA, and you just dismiss it as “a relatively small risk of severe illness or death for much of the population”? Many, many, many,…, many more deaths and illness than from tuberculosis which is by far, far, …, far less contagious than COVID.

This just shows the hollowness of your claims as they are: empty.

Of course I know how many have died in the US. But covid did and still does have a very small risk of death for much of the population, on a percentage basis. What's hard to understand about that? We got dealt a bad hand by China, but you can't take draconian measures against millions of people in the population and jeopardize your whole economy, close down schools and set students back a year or two, fire first responders, and other similar dumb stuff that was done in some areas.

As to comparing covid to TB, covid is for most people mild to moderate and self limiting, while TB is a much more serious threat to anyone who contracts it, young or old. I think that's why the infectious disease people are so serious about controlling it. A virus like covid is going to do its thing pretty much no matter how you try to control it, which is what it did. Unless you want to go full national lock down like New Zealand.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Well, my point is that we have a different opinion as to how much and for how long governmental control is justified and/or constitutional in a situation like this covid pandemic. Yes, they can issue states of emergency in response to a public health threat. But the question is, for how long? Is there no limit to these powers? If there is no limit, and they are denying constitutional rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, which they did, then our rights have been abrogated, which is not acceptable.

For how long did covid constitute a public health emergency that justified vaccine mandates, lock downs, and other measures? There has to be a limit. And it does become authoritarian at some point, if the emergency is clearly over and the strictures are kept in place, as I believe they were in many places in the US.

This website has a fairly decent overview of U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to COVID.

COVID-19 Related Opinions and Orders from the U.S. Supreme Court - Network for Public Health Law

Public and private employers across the U.S. are considering the potential for COVID-19 vaccine requirements for their workforces, especially among health care workers. This resource examines the likelihood of employer vaccine mandates.

www.networkforphl.org

We could discuss the merits of various court decisions until the cows come home, but our opinions will not change any court rulings.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The modern Democrat Party is becoming more fascist as they go, in their attempts to control the flow of information and events in the US. Fascism involves government control of industry, and we see that the DOJ and FBI were actively involved in coercing social media platforms(Twitter, most notably) to squelch freedom of speech and thought, by banning certain individuals from being able to express opinions and transmit information they didn't like. I'm glad it is all now going to be coming out in congressional hearings, as we need to know exactly what went on.

We should start a thread called "Posts That Don't Age Well".

Republicans held a hearing to prove Twitter's bias against them. It backfired in spectacular fashion | CNN Business

 

[Trell]

We start a thread called "Posts That Don't Age Well".

Republicans held a hearing to prove Twitter's bias against them. It backfired in spectacular fashion | CNN Business

It didn’t even last a day.

 

[Swerd]

We could discuss the merits of various court decisions until the cows come home, but our opinions will not change any court rulings.

Well said. The last I heard, the same applies in East Texas as well. Yes, everyone has his own opinions. But in this case, mtrot's opinion has been ruled legally invalid for some time.

(Usually statements about 'everyone having an opinion' are accompanied by references to rectal orifices that we also all have – but I won't go there.)

mtrot is trying to make the case that TB and COVID-19 should be treated different. He's wrong on this point too. Both are respiratory infectious diseases that spread through similar mechanisms. There are medical treatments available to treat & control TB, but it is still a slow developing disease that has never been a successful target of vaccination. Public health measures still must be relied upon to prevent its spread. Covid-19, in late 2019, was a novel infectious viral disease to which no one on this planet had previous exposure. No vaccines existed at that time. Once the first vaccines became available, late that same year and on into 2020, it still took some time before a large enough portion of the US population was immunized. Most of the rest of the world took a back seat on getting immunized, so the virus still spread rapidly & widely. Both TB and Covid-19 share the common feature that they are uncontrolled infections spread largely through the air. What part of that don't you understand?

mtrot further argues that elected politicians and not public health professionals should rule over how to protect the public from these diseases. This is not only wreckless and irresponsible, it is disastrously wrong to argue that politicians can ignore established law when it suits their political ambitions. Much of this seems to be beyond mtrot's ability to understand.

 

[mtrot]

Well said. The last I heard, the same applies in East Texas as well. Yes, everyone has his own opinions. But in this case, mtrot's opinion has been ruled legally invalid for some time.

(Usually statements about 'everyone having an opinion' are accompanied by references to rectal orifices that we also all have – but I won't go there.)

mtrot is trying to make the case that TB and COVID-19 should be treated different. He's wrong on this point too. Both are respiratory infectious diseases that spread through similar mechanisms. There are medical treatments available to treat & control TB, but it is still a slow developing disease that has never been a successful target of vaccination. Public health measures still must be relied upon to prevent its spread. Covid-19, in late 2019, was a novel infectious viral disease to which no one on this planet had previous exposure. No vaccines existed at that time. Once the first vaccines became available, late that same year and on into 2020, it still took some time before a large enough portion of the US population was immunized. Most of the rest of the world took a back seat on getting immunized, so the virus still spread rapidly & widely. Both TB and Covid-19 share the common feature that they are uncontrolled infections spread largely through the air. What part of that don't you understand?

mtrot further argues that elected politicians and not public health professionals should rule over how to protect the public from these diseases. This is not only wreckless and irresponsible, it is disastrously wrong to argue that politicians can ignore established law when it suits their political ambitions. Much of this seems to be beyond mtrot's ability to understand.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. And I'm astonished that you apparently are comfortable with "public health professionals" being able to 'rule' over how to protect the public from these diseases", and not our elected political officials? You seem to have it back assward. Are you arguing that the public health officials should unilaterally get to establish measures like lock downs, mask and vaccine mandates, and the like? It doesn't work that way. In my county, our county judge ordered a temporary lock down, based on recommendations from the public health professionals, and he lifted it fairly soon afterwards, possibly before the medical people really wanted him to. He took into account not only the medical situation, but also the effects the public health measures were placing on businesses, schools, and other factors.

Also, I am not claiming that covid-19 was not a serious public health threat, and I understand exactly how it spread. The question is, what degree and type of restrictive health measures is appropriate, and for how long they should be continued.

 

[mtrot]

At least she got her money's worth on the cosmetic work!

Glamorous Miami real estate influencer busted for buying Bentley, cosmetic surgery with $381K in COVID relief funds: feds

As part of the schene, Daniela Rendon, 31, allegedly falsified documents related to her real estate business in order to qualify for the PPP money — including her annual revenue and number of…

nypost.com

 

[Trell]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. And I'm astonished that you apparently are comfortable with "public health professionals" being able to 'rule' over how to protect the public from these diseases", and not our elected political officials? You seem to have it back assward. Are you arguing that the public health officials should unilaterally get to establish measures like lock downs, mask and vaccine mandates, and the like? It doesn't work that way. In my county, our county judge ordered a temporary lock down, based on recommendations from the public health professionals, and he lifted it fairly soon afterwards, possibly before the medical people really wanted him to. He took into account not only the medical situation, but also the effects the public health measures were placing on businesses, schools, and other factors.

You missed the last part of @Swerd's post quoted by you using bold type: >>> it is disastrously wrong to argue that politicians can ignore established law when it suits their political ambitions. Much of this seems to be beyond mtrot's ability to understand. <<<

Who do you think makes these laws?

Also, I am not claiming that covid-19 was not a serious public health threat, and I understand exactly how it spread.

Yes you where, and no, I don't think you understand.