An article from "Infection Control Today"
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.co...re-unnecessary
An article from "Infection Control Today"
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.co...re-unnecessary
As with most things, it's probably a little from column A, a little from column B. My guess, not knowing the individuals involved and not knowing as much about the problem as either group, is that that they're both right. Public health people have the job of ending the pandemic, and they advocate strategies that they believe, based on data, will end the pandemic. Their paradigm is "stop pandemic, then return to normal". To get that done, they have to use big picture, simplistic strategies, because the overall population is doesn't understand nuance well.Originally Posted by 4given
The opposing group is likely looking at a scenario where the pandemic isn't going to be solved any time soon, so they are aiming for the most overall good, which likely does involve some degree of responsible rules relaxation to allow the other important stuff some priority again.
what's offensive about my post?
Pointing out that there is zero value in unverified 5th hand information and that those that do are creating problems worse than any pandemic?
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
You appear to be characterizing the information I've presented as unverified 5th hand information. It is neither and characterizing it that way is tantamount to calling me, and my friend, liars. I find that offensive.
I'm grateful for the conversation here so far, and I think @Bio nailed it on why there's two very different groups of vetted medical professionals advocating very different courses of action.
One's responsibilities during a pandemic are an interesting dilemma, insofar on what's just bad luck, and what's being stupid, and what's legally and morally punishable.
Personally I think existing legal ramifications of knowledge and intent are very much applicable.
Someone who brought COVID-19 or the Flu to a party unknowingly is just bad luck.
Someone sick with a disease widely known to be lethal, and they go to a party without proper PPE or disclosure to anyone else might be legally considered to be criminal action. That feels like an easy policy to justify with something like COVID-19, but I fear the slippery slope.
Because it is both impossible to verify, and you are presenting information that is (at best) third hand to you, making it 4th hand information here.
I do not think you're a liar or would desire to lie about this, but there's the truth we can say and the truth we can prove. Please do not take offense when someone interprets the truth you can say as unverified, because, it *is* unverified to them.
Fair enough and not offensive. Rob's approach, on the other hand, was unnecessarily so (as is often the case).
The information I presented is second hand to me, not third hand, and, more importantly, verified by me to my satisfaction. If it wasn't, I wouldn't present it. You don't know me, so you have no particular reason to know that, trust my standards of proof or believe (or disbelieve ) me. Believe me or not, as you wish, and do with the information what you will. I thought for a bit about whether I should bother posting in this thread at all because internet and I came out in favor of posting. It seemed like the more responsible thing to do since I do, in fact, know of two specific cases of reinfection. If nothing else, I feel better about myself for having done it.
Yes.
Except we can add now that we do know reinfection is possible: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...764-7/fulltext
Findings: The patient had two positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, the first on April 18, 2020, and the second on June 5, 2020, separated by two negative tests done during follow-up in May, 2020. Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 showed genetically significant differences between each variant associated with each instance of infection. The second infection was symptomatically more severe than the first.___Interpretation: Genetic discordance of the two SARS-CoV-2 specimens was greater than could be accounted for by short-term in vivo evolution. These findings suggest that the patient was infected by SARS-CoV-2 on two separate occasions by a genetically distinct virus. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases. All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development and application.
The Lancet is an extremely well respected biomedical journal.
The content is outside of my wheelhouse, but the Lancet isn't above putting politics over methods: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...i-gun-research
Re-Edited Edit:
Doesn't that article imply that The Lancet put methods ahead of politics? If afterall, neither The Lancet or the original authors retracted the study and at best you can quote some tangential third or parties saying, "It's a good journal."
Just because the authors of the original study didn't agree with the hook and sinker line of NRA politics doesn't actually mean the journal is "putting politics above methods". You guys managed to find plenty to cite in there that was positive...you guys argue that others have a political agenda to oppose the parts of the study convenient for your agenda, but argue simultaneously that the study is flawed, because it has parts that don't agree with your agenda.
It seems like the NRA not The Lancet put politics ahead of methods and data...
I'd say I was surprised, but I am not. The NRA is clearly all for maintaining ignorance...
Last edited by RevolverRob; 10-13-2020 at 07:24 PM.
I think a lot of people “in the know” are aware of the truth. Since the truth does not line up with certain ideologies or missions, it can’t be promoted.
The sciences and the medical profession have been seriously damaged by their handling of the virus.
Reply With Quote