- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My 16 year old daughter has covid.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:30 am to Blue_Rocky
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:30 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
But whether people like it or not, the decision to get one is a decision of comparative risk.
This is why I would encourage a 75 year old to get the vaccine but not a 17 year old.
The vaccine has 2 types of risk. Known thus far, which seem relatively low and Unknown thus far which can't be known until more time has passed.
The risk being avoided is the virus. For a 75 year old, that's some real risk very quantifiable and, as such, they should probably get the vaccine.
The risk from COVID for a 17 year old is effectively zero. I wouldn't tell you to take an Aleve if the thing you were trying to avoid posed basically zero risk to you!!!
With all we've learned, how could anyone not get this? We knew this in May of 2020, and still treated the young and healthy as if they we were fighting Ebola.
0
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:31 am to JayWhite
quote:
This is called whataboutism. The actions of those organizations don't absolve anyone here of their ignorance
The actions of those organizations justify distrust of those organizations. That’s not whataboutism.
We are supposed to trust that the vaccine is safe. But who is collecting and presenting data to prove this? People we don’t trust.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:32 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
I have been.
Incomplete data.
quote:
And, I've also ONLY referenced CDC data. So, no "alternative" sourcing for you to not like.
That's certainly a positive.
quote:
That's actually a very good reason to not do anything when there's no compelling reason to do something.
I don't agree. I'm not one to let the stupidity of other people change my behavior. I don't think anyone should do that.
quote:
I mean. I'm sorry. If you see some of what you think are over reactions, fine. But, just remember. NONE OF THEM STARTED it.
None of them said, "hey, because I'm such an awesome person, I'm going to destroy your businesses, destroy key life plans you had for you and yours, frick up your children's schooling.............etc etc etc".
People tend to get kinda dickish when you do that irrationally and it absolutely IS irrational and unsupportable by any facts whatsoever.
Those are good reasons to oppose mandates, lockdowns, and indoctrination.
Those aren't good reasons to ignore medical advice.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:34 am to JayWhite
quote:The number matters.
Pick whatever number you want and get to the point.
The number for healthy 40 year olds is so low that asking a 40 year old to alter their life over it is silly.
This is why no one ever actually talks about it. Instead, they focus on overall numbers while effectively NEVER talking about who most of those numbers are. Then, they go all anecdotal and show us a few 40 year olds in the hospital.
The obvious game being, "600K people have died and look, here's some 40 year olds". Game as old as time. You "inform" in such a way that the listener ends up imparting their own mental stats on the subject which are 100x scarier than reality.
I guarantee you that if every night for the last year, CNN put a table up showing the risk of death by age.............Americans would have burned Washington DC and blue states to the ground by now.
Hell. I saw a woman the other day talk about "thousands of children dying". Um..............less than 400.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:35 am to Earnest_P
quote:
The actions of those organizations justify distrust of those organizations. That’s not whataboutism.
Actually, that's textbook whataboutism.
Mistrust of an organization and intentionally misrepresenting data are entirely separate.
quote:
We are supposed to trust that the vaccine is safe.
You should speak with your doctor. If you don't trust your doctor, you should find a new doctor.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:37 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
The number matters.
It doesn't matter for the point I knew you were going to make. It could be 0.00% and you would be just as wrong.
quote:
The number for healthy 40 year olds is so low that asking a 40 year old to alter their life over it is silly.
As I said, you're focused on individual benefit, not societal benefit. That's not how these things are mitigated. Like...ever.
quote:
The obvious game being, "600K people have died and look, here's some 40 year olds". Game as old as time. You "inform" in such a way that the listener ends up imparting their own mental stats on the subject which are 100x scarier than reality.
Death isn't the only negative outcome.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:40 am to JayWhite
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:41 am to JayWhite
quote:
Those are good reasons to oppose mandates, lockdowns, and indoctrination.
Those aren't good reasons to ignore medical advice.
Medical advice on getting the vaccine? Honestly, just with what I've shown today, the obvious fact that the CDC has become politicized makes "listening" to them kinda silly. Hell. Look at that link I provided with 18-29 as the reference group. Someone put a LOT of thought into making that chart as scary as humanly possible while hiding the most important info and that ain't no accident.
As for "ignoring" medical advice. Frankly, you should pretty much always ignore GROUP advice. If a doctor was talking to me right now and he said, "Blue, you should get the vaccine because it will help society", I'd look at him like he was retarded.
If, on other hand he said, "numbers tend to indicate that your individual risk of catching and dying from COVID are X and, the vaccine appears to present Y risk which I think makes it the better risk", I'd have respect for him and would actually consider his prescription for my success.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:46 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
Medical advice on getting the vaccine? Honestly, just with what I've shown today, the obvious fact that the CDC has become politicized makes "listening" to them kinda silly.
As I've said probably a dozen times, based on the medical advice of your doctor. I've probably said it directly to you multiple times.
quote:
As for "ignoring" medical advice. Frankly, you should pretty much always ignore GROUP advice. If a doctor was talking to me right now and he said, "Blue, you should get the vaccine because it will help society", I'd look at him like he was retarded.
Of course you would. Because there's an element of rebellion in your decision that overrides reason and data. That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as something else.
quote:
If, on other hand he said, "numbers tend to indicate that your individual risk of catching and dying from COVID are X and, the vaccine appears to present Y risk which I think makes it the better risk", I'd have respect for him and would actually consider his prescription for my success.
This is just another way of admitting that I was correct.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:46 am to Earnest_P
quote:
People we don’t trust.
And we don't trust them because they have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of lying.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:47 am to JayWhite
quote:
As I said, you're focused on individual benefit, not societal benefit. That's not how these things are mitigated. Like...ever.
And again, "society" isn't really impacted by this disease as I've very strongly spelled out in this thread. But, to recap.
For people under the age of 65, their individual risk working down in age....ranges from "meh, maybe I should be kinda careful to, basically not a fricking chance".
THAT is a societal point!
Also, we know beyond any doubt that the numbers for those over age 65 MUST be inflated. Why do we know this? Well, we know it because in any given year, your odds of dying if you wake up on Jan 1 at 80 years old is about 3%. Moreover, we know that the age cut off in the CDC data ends at "75 and up". This means that we're talking about a lot of deaths that are age 85, 88, 90 older!. Do I need to walk you thru the implications of those numbers statistically?
quote:LOL. Mmkay. It ain't no accident that literally NOWHERE on the CDC is this aspect quantified in any way. Trust me, if it were scary, it would be on their site.
Death isn't the only negative outcome.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:47 am to JayWhite
quote:
Certainly not so insignificant that we should all go about like it's 2019.
I’m not convinced this wouldn’t have resulted in the least number of true CV-related deaths. Outside of isolating those genuinely at risk and treating illnesses, if we had done nothing more - would our outcome(s) not have been substantially better than what we’ve experienced? The CV19 shitshow may be just the latest example of the gov’t-sponsored cure being worse than the disease.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:50 am to JayWhite
quote:No. I would because you don't assess individual risk that way and it's an individual risk decision.
Of course you would. Because there's an element of rebellion in your decision that overrides reason and data. That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as something else.
quote:Make up your mind. Cause there are exactly ZERO doctors doing what I described when talking to a 30 year old about getting the vaccine cause............well..............no 30 year old would do it then! LOL
This is just another way of admitting that I was correct.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:53 am to David_DJS
quote:
I’m not convinced this wouldn’t have resulted in the least number of true CV-related deaths. Outside of isolating those genuinely at risk and treating illnesses, if we had done nothing more - would our outcome(s) not have been substantially better than what we’ve experienced? The CV19 shitshow may be just the latest example of the gov’t-sponsored cure being worse than the disease.
Looking at a tiny slice of society..........the Army experienced a spike in suicide deaths GREATER than its total number of covid deaths in 2020.
Notice also in this thread that there has been literally zero value assigned to the harm done by the reaction to COVID. ALL they want to measure is their supposed success?
It would be like me "solving" car accident deaths by banning driving and then patting myself on the back over my wild success and just ignoring everyone who pointed ou the negative impacts of banning driving by saying, "at least you aren't dead!!!!"
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:54 am to JayWhite
quote:
Maybe, but I don't think spite is a good reason to ignore science.
You keep saying this as if YOUR perception of what the $cience on COVID is gospel.
Remember, your "Science" is being given to you by people that think men can menstruate and to say OTHERWISE would result in being banished, marginalized and destroyed professionally.
You can't have truth in Science when people are ACTIVELY CENSORING alternative views being offered by legitimate Doctors and Virologists.
You are on the wrong side of this argument because you begin with the false premise that there is a free flow of competing ideas.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:55 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
the obvious fact that the CDC has become politicized makes "listening" to them kinda silly
Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.
Anyone at the CDC making that biologically correct statement would be burned at the stake, THAT'S who you're getting your $cience from.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:56 am to Blue_Rocky
quote:
And again, "society" isn't really impacted by this disease as I've very strongly spelled out in this thread. But, to recap.
You've attempted it. Then you proceed to eliminate a significant portion of society in your data. That's why your point won't be taken seriously.
quote:
Do I need to walk you thru the implications of those numbers statistically?
I have no desire to watch you fumble through another explanation of the data, but if you really want to, go for it.
quote:
LOL. Mmkay. It ain't no accident that literally NOWHERE on the CDC is this aspect quantified in any way. Trust me, if it were scary, it would be on their site.
Wait. What? They have numbers of new cases and hospitalizations spelled out plainly in their data.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:57 am to oogabooga68
quote:
You can't have truth in Science when people are ACTIVELY CENSORING alternative views being offered by legitimate Doctors and Virologists.
This is honestly a key point. When social media.......and let's be honest here..........AT THE BEHEST OF THOSE IN POWER.........censors people who have legit credentials, it does literally nothing but harm to the discussion.
Why? Well. For 1, it means that we know there are people with legit credentials out there who cannot be heard BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, we also know there are people with legit credentials out there who are too scared for their careers to even speak up.
You can't run a society like that.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 11:58 am to David_DJS
quote:
I’m not convinced this wouldn’t have resulted in the least number of true CV-related deaths. Outside of isolating those genuinely at risk and treating illnesses, if we had done nothing more - would our outcome(s) not have been substantially better than what we’ve experienced? The CV19 shitshow may be just the latest example of the gov’t-sponsored cure being worse than the disease.
It's possible, but that isn't what happened.
Posted on 8/30/21 at 12:00 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
You keep saying this as if YOUR perception of what the $cience on COVID is gospel.
Not gospel. More complete. Certainly more so than Facebook doctors referencing snippets of a study that actually contradicts the points they're trying to make.
quote:
Remember, your "Science"
My science is raw data.
quote:
You can't have truth in Science when people are ACTIVELY CENSORING alternative views being offered by legitimate Doctors and Virologists.
You are on the wrong side of this argument because you begin with the false premise that there is a free flow of competing ideas.
The data don't care about your views or your competing ideas.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News