Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was complained about in real time, but no one knew with any certainty who was right and who was wrong.  It was a balancing of one harm against another.  No one knew for sure whether schools would turn into virus incubators.  And people would have absolutely shit themselves if a couple dozen kids got real sick or died.

And how, pray tell, were mask recommendations harmful?  At worst, they were ineffective and inconvenient.

These were all judgment calls made in the heat of battle.  One side really didn't like them, but not because of any superior knowledge or judgment.  Over time, it may have been shown that there may have been more validity to their complaints than was known.  At the time it was nothing but "my freedumb."

 

Masking kids was known to cause speech and development delays. Made teaching and learning harder.

Extended school closures set kids back educationally. Many lost from schools. This was obvious at the time but denied. These people chose protecting older people over kids. 

You have it all wrong and obviously have some political axe to grind. I should’ve never commented. Good luck in your quest to deny reality. 
 

14 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Y'all arguing with GRUhorn about COVID. Good luck with that.

What?

  • Fuck You 9
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

The strategies didn’t undermine the credibility of the CDC and FDA. 
 

Conspiracy theorists, QTards, and edgelord troll clowns did. 

Public health messaging on a variety of topics during the pandemic was critically damaging to credibility of public health experts in general, and the CDC/FDA in particular. The vaccine mandates as a government public health initiative, and various attempts to expand were critically damaging to public perception. Our political environment made almost everything inevitably toxic, and as such there is a deep political divide over the perceptions of these agencies. Masks and schools are side show stuff imo. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Y'all arguing with GRUhorn about COVID. Good luck with that.

Too many posts on football board to be GRU, methinks.

Also negged me for calling the Arch hype Trump-level stupid on the football board.  Clearly doesn't want any politics outside the CR.  😭

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, fuggled said:

 

 

You assertion that others take a more evidence based approach has no factual basis.  You're just making things up.

Sweden also doesn't recommend the flu vaccine for most people.  They recommend it for those over 65 and for those in risk groups (i.e. underlying conditions).  That's it.  Whereas the US recommends the flu vaccine for anyone over 6 months of age unless there are contraindications.  How do you explain the difference?

Is it because the flu vaccine has become a political dogma in the US?

Is it because we're wailing and gnashing out teeth?

It is because we're ignoring evidence in the US?

Give me an explanation and then juxtapose it with COVID.

The reality is that we have the same evidence as Sweden and the rest of Europe regarding influenza and the flu vaccine, but we've made different policy decisions based on that evidence.  The reasons the US recommends the flu vaccine for everyone and Sweden doesn't vary, but include:

  1. It's a simpler policy.  If you're targeting young children, the elderly, pregnant women, high risk groups, etc. you're quickly getting to 70%+ of the population.  At that point it's simpler to just suggest everyone get vaccinated so you don't have to worry about people parsing the guidance.
  2. Access is simpler in the US.  When the US adopted this policy, vaccines were available in US pharmacies but that wasn't the case in lots of European countries where you had to visit the doctor to get a vaccine.  The access restrictions impacted the European policies. 
  3. Impact is different in the US.  In the US, the vast majority of working adults do not received paid sick leave and will go to work even if they are sick.  This is not the case in Sweden and other European countries.  This means a virus will spread more easily in the US.  So we put our dollars towards vaccines to prevent spread while Sweden puts their dollars towards sick leave.

We have different public policy recommendations because we operate in different complex systems of public/private health with different tradeoffs in prevention, access, treatment, etc.  It's reductive and misleading to claim one approach is "evidence based" and the other is not.  I suspect you know that are attempting to mislead others intentionally.

Yeah, this is all a judgment call.

In the legal world, you don't base claims of malpractice, legal or medical, on judgment calls.

  • Haha 1
Posted

I'm sure it just a coincidence that the covid death rate was higher in red states that thumbed their noses at the federal government. Pure coincidence. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Comparing the public health system of our country to civilized. nations that have universal health care is useless and misleading. That's basically the logic.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I'm sure it just a coincidence that the covid death rate was higher in red states that thumbed their noses at the federal government. Pure coincidence. 

Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States - Wikipedia

But probably has something to do with all those dense urban areas in the deep south and West Virginia

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You are one of the few people on this board of educated and informed people that can make valid criticisms of the public health apparatus.

The dude trumpets politically fabricated medical studies, so maybe rethink your willingness to accept his credentials. To whit, the Cass Review:

Quote

Conclusions

The Cass report’s recommendations, given its methodological flaws and misrepresentation of evidence , warrant critical scrutiny to ensure ethical and effective support for gender-diverse youth.

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted

  

38 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

gender-diverse youth

Yeah, that was the other politically charged topic I was referring to in that quote that fuggled picked up. 

43 minutes ago, fuggled said:

 

 

You assertion that others take a more evidence based approach has no factual basis.  You're just making things up.

Sweden also doesn't recommend the flu vaccine for most people.  They recommend it for those over 65 and for those in risk groups (i.e. underlying conditions).  That's it.  Whereas the US recommends the flu vaccine for anyone over 6 months of age unless there are contraindications.  How do you explain the difference?

Is it because the flu vaccine has become a political dogma in the US?

Is it because we're wailing and gnashing out teeth?

It is because we're ignoring evidence in the US?

Give me an explanation and then juxtapose it with COVID.

The reality is that we have the same evidence as Sweden and the rest of Europe regarding influenza and the flu vaccine, but we've made different policy decisions based on that evidence.  The reasons the US recommends the flu vaccine for everyone and Sweden doesn't vary, but include:

  1. It's a simpler policy.  If you're targeting young children, the elderly, pregnant women, high risk groups, etc. you're quickly getting to 70%+ of the population.  At that point it's simpler to just suggest everyone get vaccinated so you don't have to worry about people parsing the guidance.
  2. Access is simpler in the US.  When the US adopted this policy, vaccines were available in US pharmacies but that wasn't the case in lots of European countries where you had to visit the doctor to get a vaccine.  The access restrictions impacted the European policies. 
  3. Impact is different in the US.  In the US, the vast majority of working adults do not received paid sick leave and will go to work even if they are sick.  This is not the case in Sweden and other European countries.  This means a virus will spread more easily in the US.  So we put our dollars towards vaccines to prevent spread while Sweden puts their dollars towards sick leave.

We have different public policy recommendations because we operate in different complex systems of public/private health with different tradeoffs in prevention, access, treatment, etc.  It's reductive and misleading to claim one approach is "evidence based" and the other is not.  I suspect you know that are attempting to mislead others intentionally.

 

The juxtaposition with stable flu vax recs across countries and citing the environment factors that are part of the consideration are reasonable points. But everyone is working with the same evidence wrt COVID boosting. Our approach has largely been to take that evidence and spit out one size fits all recs. I'd call that reductive, and I certainly would not call it strongly evidence based. What we are talking about here is ongoing adjustment and refining of COVID booster recs. Sweden, UK and Australia, as examples, all recently tightened up their booster recs to focus on high-risk individuals. You don't hear the absolutely political wailing and gnashing of teeth about it like we get here when people start talking about tightening up the recs. I am open to the argument that most Americans are too stupid to digest risk-based recommendations, so we just tell everyone they need to do something. But don't act surprised if that approach ends up undermining the credibility of the messenger. But tell me more about misleading others intentionally, lol. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

The dude trumpets politically fabricated medical studies, so maybe rethink your willingness to accept his credentials. To whit, the Cass Review:

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

Note that I didn't say his criticisms were valid.  I said he "can" make valid criticisms, which the vast majority of MAGA cannot.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  

Yeah, that was the other politically charged topic I was referring to in that quote that fuggled picked up. 

 

The juxtaposition with stable flu vax recs across countries and citing the environment factors that are part of the consideration are reasonable points. But everyone is working with the same evidence wrt COVID boosting. Our approach has largely been to take that evidence and spit out one size fits all recs. I'd call that reductive, and I certainly would not call it strongly evidence based. What we are talking about here is ongoing adjustment and refining of COVID booster recs. Sweden, UK and Australia, as examples, all recently tightened up their booster recs to focus on high-risk individuals. You don't hear the absolutely political wailing and gnashing of teeth about it like we get here when people start talking about tightening up the recs. I am open to the argument that most Americans are too stupid to digest risk-based recommendations, so we just tell everyone they need to do something. But don't act surprised if that approach ends up undermining the credibility of the messenger. But tell me more about misleading others intentionally, lol. 

That prompts the question about what provoked political wailing and gnashing of teeth?  Is it Covid recommendations or fear from the rationals that an administration that politicizes every fucking thing is politicizing this?

And with a complete crackpot Secretary of Health with zero background in public health.

Things that make you go hmm.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this is all a judgment call.

In the legal world, you don't base claims of malpractice, legal or medical, on judgment calls.

You laugh, but it's a true statement.  It is fundamentally unfair to criticize judgment calls based on after-acquired knowledge.

Posted
You are one of the few people on this board of educated and informed people that can make valid criticisms of the public health apparatus.
The hoi polloi that brought us Trump and RFK absolutely cannot.
The public perception of CDC/FDA was not driven by valid criticism from valid sources.  It was driven by ignorance.
And RFK is not a valid response to any criticism, valid or otherwise.

Do not keep adding to his credibility. He is not criticizing public health in good faith. It’s bullshit.
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Note that I didn't say his criticisms were valid.  I said he "can" make valid criticisms, which the vast majority of MAGA cannot.

Politically motivated, bogus research is a thing with RFK and his apologists. Better to cite the inaccuracies in the reports to which they point, then mock or ignore, imo. These aren’t serious people.

Quote

A highly-publicized U.S. government report on the health of American children referenced scientific studies that did not exist among citations to support its conclusions  in what the White House said were "formatting issues" on Thursday.

The report produced by the Make America Healthy Again Commission, named after the slogan aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was released last week. The 14-member commission included Kennedy, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Food and Drug Administration head Martin Makary among others.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-report-us-child-health-cited-nonexistent-studies-media-2025-05-30/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Note that I didn't say his criticisms were valid.  I said he "can" make valid criticisms, which the vast majority of MAGA cannot.

Let me ask you this Twice. Based on what you know, do you think that we should be boosting a healthy male adolescent? You think it invalid to point out that this is a silly recommendation, and to point out the absurdity of the position that we have to tell that adolescent male to boost because we don't know how to get 70 year olds with COPD to take a booster any other way.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, tigol said:

Do not keep adding to his credibility. He is not criticizing public health in good faith. It’s bullshit.

This is like discussing with religious fundamentalists.

Booster uptake is shit. 10-20% depending on which numbers you look at. The messaging is not and has not been working. But maybe we should just do more of the same.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let me ask you this Twice. Based on what you know, do you think that we should be boosting a healthy male adolescent? You think it invalid to point out that this is a silly recommendation, and to point out the absurdity of the position that we have to tell that adolescent male to boost because we don't know how to get 70 year olds with COPD to take a booster any other way.  

Does this healthy male adolescent interact with immunocompromised or otherwise high risk individuals?  Because right now healthy adult caregivers who do no longer can get boosters in many jurisdictions, thanks to RFK Jr.  That makes lots of sense, doesn't it?

Look, by all means I'm in favor of giving people the choice whether to get COVID and flu boosters.  I've gotten pneumonia vaccines from time to time as well (having suffered it several times in my adulthood).  What is infuriating at this particular time is that RFK Jr. has effectively prevented many who would choose to get those vaccines from getting them, either by requiring prescriptions, causing insurance no longer to cover the cost, or placing other hurdles to access.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Because right now healthy adult caregivers who do no longer can get boosters in many jurisdictions, thanks to RFK Jr.  That makes lots of sense, doesn't it?

Because it is not true. Any physician in the US can prescribe or directly administer a COVID booster based on their individual risk profile. I realize that some states put restrictions on what pharmacists can administer without a physician order. I am generally opposed to those state laws and would support changing them as Colorado recently did. I think that an insurer would be foolish to restrict coverage. But you've evaded the point as to whether the CDC should be making a universal recommendation for healthy adolescent males. ACA requirements that tie required coverage to ACIP/CDC guidance is not a recommendation based on medical evidence and risk/benefit analysis, it's a justification based on the dysfunction of our healthcare financing system. 

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Let me ask you this Twice. Based on what you know, do you think that we should be boosting a healthy male adolescent? You think it invalid to point out that this is a silly recommendation, and to point out the absurdity of the position that we have to tell that adolescent male to boost because we don't know how to get 70 year olds with COPD to take a booster any other way.  

I also didn't say your criticisms were invalid either.  Is it potentially unnecessary?  Sure.  Does it hurt?  Not much.  Does it cost?  Some.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Because it is not true. Any physician in the US can prescribe or directly administer a COVID booster based on their individual risk profile. I realize that some states put restrictions on what pharmacists can administer without a physician order. I am generally opposed to those state laws and would support changing them as Colorado recently did. I think that an insurer would be foolish to restrict coverage. But you've evaded the point as to whether the CDC should be making a universal recommendation for healthy adolescent males. ACA requirements that tie required coverage to ACIP/CDC guidance is not a recommendation based on medical evidence and risk/benefit analysis, it's a justification based on the dysfunction of our healthcare financing system. 

 

No, it absolutely is true, and you're gaslighting. 

I'm not evading anything.  You are the one who regularly evades direct questions and then claims "ad hominem" when someone calls you out on it (while making the exact sort of ad hominem attacks/arguments on other posters).  It's really tiresome, frankly.  

I'm not a public health expert so I can't comment on what the CDC should or shouldn't be doing.  But the fact that RFK Jr. gutted the entire ACIP  and top CDC officials in favor of a new appointee who has no experience in the realm is absolutely irresponsible.

The net effect of what has been done (removing the recommendations) is that people are EFFECTIVELY being prevented from accessing vaccines that could save lives of not just those seeking them but others with whom they interact (like spouses of cancer patients, etc.)  And it is true.  Don't just take my word for it:

"People who are not officially eligible for the vaccines may still be able to get the shots for themselves or their children by getting a doctor's prescription and paying out of pocket. But that may create insurmountable barriers for many people. The COVID shots can cost $200 or more without insurance, and getting a doctor's appointment for vaccination can be difficult."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5515503/fda-covid-vaccines-restricted?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=bsky.app

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Pfizer is charging too much, so we need to recommend that all 15 year old boys get the booster is some next level galaxy brained absurdity. What a fucking system. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Politically motivated, bogus research is a thing with RFK and his apologists. Better to cite the inaccuracies in the reports to which they point, then mock or ignore, imo. These aren’t serious people.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-report-us-child-health-cited-nonexistent-studies-media-2025-05-30/

 

those non-existent studies in the report are due to the report being written by AI

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

those non-existent studies in the report are due to the report being written by AI

 

 

I don’t doubt it. And the excuse that the non-existent source for their citation was due to a coding error, because who double checks their medical research study?

image.jpeg.20595e260a7b39623a64508e5f8edcef.jpeg

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
15 hours ago, Laguna said:

Even if you agree with that, which I don’t, if you fuck up your job repeatedly you and your processes and methods are in danger of being replaced. 

You’re a moron

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Y'all arguing with GRUhorn about COVID. Good luck with that.

Hmm joined July 28 BUT, no crypto posts. Maybe it is becoming self aware 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You’re a moron

Durr, if you don’t get it right the first time and have to resort to further testing and evidence to make new conclusions, then what good were you to begin with?  The scientific method is bogus man!  
 

 

Sorry, I hate these people. They are a drain on humanity and should be summarily dismissed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...