COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Sim]

https://www.the-sun.com/health/4494386/boris-johnson-plan-b-restrictions/

Quote

From Thursday morning face masks will no longer be legally required anywhere in the country.

Brits will still be urged to wear masks in crowded places, but will not be fined for refusing to do so.

 

At the same time Covid passports will be axed but similarly big venues can choose to use them if wanted.

Guidance to work from home will be dropped, with workers expected to go back to their offices.

The only remaining rule will be the requirement to self-isolate for five days after testing positive for Covid, which Mr Johnson also wants to drop in March.

England for the win. 

[TheNewGazmo]

34 minutes ago, Sim said:

https://www.the-sun.com/health/4494386/boris-johnson-plan-b-restrictions/

England for the win. 

Looks like Johnson is putting his Johnson on the table.  Finally, someone with some common sense.

Edited January 19, 2022 by TheNewGazmo

[BashiChuni]

Wonder how low his poll numbers were…

[brickhistory]

50 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Wonder how low his poll numbers were…

Sub-surface...

This clip is from his own party in Parliament.  I dig how the Brits do it sometimes.

"In the name of God, go!"

[Lord Ratner]

18 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Looks like Johnson is putting his Johnson on the table.  Finally, someone with some common sense.

Only because he got caught throwing a party.

 

Rules for thee but not for me

[Sim]

Quote

A new report released on Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed that unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID-19 were better protected than those who were vaccinated and not previously infected during the recent delta surge.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/cdc-reveals-natural-immunity-acquired-previous-infection-covid-19-provides-protection-vaccines/

 

Remember that time when my flight doc said vaxed are 3x better protected than natural immunity. Same was said in media talking points.  🤮

[BashiChuni]

the tide of stupidity is turning...but the stupid ones are doubling down

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/cdc-reveals-natural-immunity-acquired-previous-infection-covid-19-provides-protection-vaccines/

 

Remember that time when my flight doc said vaxed are 3x better protected than natural immunity. Same was said in media talking points.  🤮

You're right. The narrative against proponents of natural immunity has been some serious horseshit.  It's always been conventional medical wisdom that contracting and then recovering from something is the gold standard of immunity going forward. 
 

But.. to play devils advocate here.. there are a lot of people who think they have natural immunity, and probably don't.  I can't count the number of times I've heard someone claim they had covid in spring 2020 because they had the sniffles or felt a tingle in their jimmies. 
 

"yeah I was probably like one of the first cases"

"oh really?"

"yeah I felt under the weather back in March of 2020"

"did you get tested?"

"no, but it was probably covid"

[Sim]

Oh looky what email I just received. 

Quote

Dear beneficiary,

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Paxlovid for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients over 12. Paxlovid is covered for TRICARE beneficiaries if ordered by a provider. This treatment should be initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis of COVID-19 and within five days of symptom onset.

Talk to your Primary Care Manager (PCM) to determine whether, based on your individual circumstances, you are eligible to receive Paxlovid.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-first-oral-antiviral-treatment-covid-19

 

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

You're right. The narrative against proponents of natural immunity has been some serious horseshit.  It's always been conventional medical wisdom that contracting and then recovering from something is the gold standard of immunity going forward. 
 

But.. to play devils advocate here.. there are a lot of people who think they have natural immunity, and probably don't.  I can't count the number of times I've heard someone claim they had covid in spring 2020 because they had the sniffles or felt a tingle in their jimmies. 
 

"yeah I was probably like one of the first cases"

"oh really?"

"yeah I felt under the weather back in March of 2020"

"did you get tested?"

"no, but it was probably covid"

Who cares? That's their risk to take.

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

You're right. The narrative against proponents of natural immunity has been some serious horseshit.  It's always been conventional medical wisdom that contracting and then recovering from something is the gold standard of immunity going forward. 

“Always”?  Really?

I’m raising the BS flag here—the medical community that the far left loves to quote has pretty much been all about vaccines and masks and typically says little about natural immunity, especially if someone who has had covid doesn’t want to get the shot and/or wear a mask.  

The DoD doesn’t care if you’ve had a documented case of covid, you’re still getting the shot whether you like it or not.  That being said, I don’t feel bad for those facing discharges for refusing to get the shot (after all, it is the military and we do what we’re told)…but let’s not pretend then that those members who have had covid are somehow less protected than those who have gotten a shot 9 months ago.

Edited to add:  Yes, you said that the narrative has been horseshit…but yet how many pro-vaccine and mask people have been saying that if you don’t want the vaccine and/or wear a mask that you’re “selfish and anti-science”?  If Fauci and the other “medical experts” want to start over by admitting to the American people how they’ve been wrong several times, why they were wrong, and publicly say how others have been right (see above), then perhaps they could regain some credibility.  But they won’t.

Edited January 20, 2022 by HeloDude

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Who cares? That's their risk to take.

Except that if you are operating on incorrect assumptions, you are likely behaving in a way that exposes yourself and others to increased risk.  

[BashiChuni]

define risk. what's your tolerance?

[Pooter]

13 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

define risk. what's your tolerance?

Risk = a * b

a=probability of occurrence
b=severity of outcome if it occurs

Masks slightly reduce variable a.

Vaccines slightly reduce variable a and greatly reduce variable b.  Masks come with no inherent risk. The vaccines come with negligible inherent risk. 
 

So to answer your question, my risk tolerance corresponds to what is easily available to me to mitigate that risk.  I will not intentionally accept higher risk than I need to.  I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Pooter

[HeloDude]

20 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

[SpeedOfHeat]

46 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Masks come with no inherent *physical* risk.

FIFY

[Lawman]

Risk = a * b
a=probability of occurrence
b=severity of outcome if it occurs
Masks slightly reduce variable a.
Vaccines slightly reduce variable a and greatly reduce variable b.  Masks come with no inherent risk. The vaccines come with negligible inherent risk. 
 
So to answer your question, my risk tolerance corresponds to what is easily available to me to mitigate that risk.  I will not intentionally accept higher risk than I need to.  I've never been in a car crash in my whole life, but the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is intolerable to me because it costs nothing and massively reduces variable b. 

Cloth masks are a show of solidarity and little more.

At this point those “minor inconvenience” events are the equivalent to ordering the Diet Coke with your extra big ass nacho and burger.

More to the point the amount of people incorrectly using barrier systems like rubber gloves create more risk than simply distancing or avoiding social situations. Every moron boldly walking around in rubber gloves spreads risk because lost of the dirty nasty stuff out there lives longer on neoprene than on your fingers. The system is designed to protect you from what you’re immediately touching that is dirty, then be thrown away. Instead those groups are actually increasing risk while taking an active “deterrent” using it incorrectly and engaging in normal activities.

We could tell people screw masks, stay out of the grocery store in your own damn car and use our new app. That would have been safer than watching Americans use masks wrong, touch things with gloves on, and then take their vegetables home and spray bleach on them…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

36 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

Some states do require helmets. Pretty much every state requires seatbelts. 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by pawnman

[Guardian]

Pawn (straw) man

A does not equal B

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I wonder why the government doesn’t require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet and propped PPE?  Or perhaps, why not ban them all together?  

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 

But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

[Lawman]

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 
But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

No, but we all pay higher insurance premiums because of the accepted presence of them on the roadways.

That’s the point… they exist, and the rest of us get on with our lives with the unacknowledged risk they present.

We similarly don’t preclude people from receiving EMT care because they were thrown clear of a motor vehicle crash when the law specifically told them wear their damn seatbelt. They get a bed in the ER regardless. Yet we can find no shortage of people calling for the UNvaccinated to be refused or at the very least out prioritized for any care… that’s some social score status China style triage from the same people that called Death Panels not a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrizzell]

Some states do require helmets. Pretty much every state requires seatbelts. 
 

I think doctors should be able to refuse care for individuals who are injured by not wearing a seatbelt while driving, or are intoxicated and cause an accident. Hey they knew the risk, and chose to not “protect” themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

They should also be able to refuse service to anyone who smokes, drinks, or is over a 18 BMI.

[Lawman]

I think doctors should be able to refuse care for individuals who are injured by not wearing a seatbelt while driving, or are intoxicated and cause an accident. Hey they knew the risk, and chose to not “protect” themselves


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Big sign at the front entrance for the people that didn’t use a condom.

*Unwanted pregnancies out back*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

58 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Because you can't spread motorcycle accidents by not wearing a helmet. 
 

But that isn't even what we're talking about. I've repeatedly said I'm opposed to civilian mask and vaccine mandates.  I'm opposed to almost all government nanny state interventions. The question was about risk and what I will accept in my own life.  

I’m pretty sure that the more injured a motorcyclist becomes after an accident the more likely they are to require more hospital care if the initial impact is not fatal.  This means that the person requiring hospital care (that might be in short supply) is putting an undue strain on our medical system…unless this argument only goes towards the unvaccinated?  
 

If you’re going to use the argument that my actions wrt not wearing a mask/not getting a shot can affect the well being of others (ie taking up a hospital bed after getting covid) then the same argument can be used for not taking proper care when riding a motorcycle…or hell, even riding one at all considering how less safe they are compared to automobiles.

I appreciate that you’re not for mandates, but to your point, everything we do in life comes down to risk vs rewards, and you can make the argument that many of our decisions can have a negative impact on someone else.  So where’s the line? 

Just think, if all those who want others to get a shot/wear a mask (and insult those who don’t)…if those same original people felt that strongly about people having unprotected sex.  The odds of you contracting a disease or having an unwanted pregnancy would be near zero.  I mean, is it too much to ask others to utilize a condom during intercourse? 

Good talk.