The 'Rona Truth in One Thread

[tnt]

@Smyrna

because Trump endorsed it early on.

And yet perversely there is also forces at work discrediting the vaccines that Trump helped develop, and these forces tend to be the same people endorsing IV. and Hyd., and generally are Trump supporters.

Hard to figure…

[Smyrna]

@tnt

I don’t think a letter to the editor should be taken as gospel. The study those letters are referring to concluded Iv. was not affective in treating covid.

I don’t think a Hannity board poster knows better than the medical professional behind the letter. Even applying what you posted, the math confirms his conclusion.

Leonardo Furlan, Ph.D.
University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil

[Smyrna]

@tnt

And yet perversely there is also forces at work discrediting the vaccines that Trump helped develop, and these forces tend to be the same people endorsing IV. and Hyd., and generally are Trump supporters.

Hard to figure…

Trump got them to the frontline ASAP. That was his contribution. The studies done prior were minimal. I took the Pfizer vaccine in part based on the information they provided saying it had a 95% efficacy rate. Now…was that true, an honest mistake or was it a lie?

[Ben_Natuf]

@tnt

I don’t think a letter to the editor should be taken as gospel. The study those letters are referring to concluded Iv. was not affective in treating covid.

brought to you by the same people who told you studies said masks were effective.

“science” is broken

[tnt]

@Smyrna

I don’t think a Hannity board poster knows better than the medical professional behind the letter. Even applying what you posted, the math confirms his conclusion.

Leonardo Furlan, Ph.D.
University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil

But the study he referenced, conducted by medical professionals, concluded the opposite of his letter.

So now what?

[tnt]

@Smyrna

Trump got them to the frontline ASAP. That was his contribution. The studies done prior were minimal. I took the Pfizer vaccine in part based on the information they provided saying it had a 95% efficacy rate. Now…was that true, an honest mistake or was it a lie?

It was 95% effective against infection against the original strain.

Unfortunately, the virus mutated.

Fortunately, it’s still highly effective against death, particularly if you boost it annually.

But isn’t it perverse that the same people that think IV. and Hyd. are ignored because trump mentioned them are (generally) the same ones who claim the Trump enabled vaccine is bunk?

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

@tnt

I don’t think a letter to the editor should be taken as gospel. The study those letters are referring to concluded Iv. was not affective in treating covid.

brought to you by the same people who told you studies said masks were effective.

“science” is broken

The studies on masks against covid - which, you know, had to happen in real time - concluded N95 masks are pretty effective against transmissions, and other masks are only slightly effective.

You’re mad that no one knew the particulars against a brand new virus?

[Ben_Natuf]

no they didn’t.

They found that cloth masks were not effective at all and that surgical masks were only 11% effective and that is providing they are used right (which means change it every time you touch it). Given subsequent studies the 11% was being generous.

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

hey didn’t.

They found that cloth masks were not effective at all and that surgical masks were only 11% effective and that is providing they are used right (which means change it every time you touch it). Given subsequent studies the 11% was being generous.

I don’t know what study you are referring to.

But here you go:

Largest study on masks and Covid-19 demonstrates their effectiveness in the...

and the study:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

[Ben_Natuf]

the write up is putting lipstick on a pig. This is the study that showed surgical masks, when worn properly, were 11% effective. They are trying to say that 11% is meaningful. It’s not, particularly because no-one wears masks properly.

I also notice that your article fails to mention the results for cloth masks, which were negligeable. In fact, the raw numbers were worse but not outside PER

[Toll_Collector]

@tnt

@Toll_Collector

If I did get it, it had to be when I was around 5 years old or younger. Before I went to school. One of the people I mentioned that caught it, he had a lot of brothers and sisters. So apparently none of them ever got it either. Needless to say, I was pleased I didn’t get it.

Don’t know how old you are, but you might consider getting the test to be sure.

If you never had it, you can’t get shingles. If you have had it, then when you hit 55 you should get your shingles vax because you don’t want that ■■■■■

I’m 57. I agree. I don’t want that crap. But I’ve never made a habit of getting vaccines. Besides when I was little and getting what the school gave you, I got two vaccines. The Covid one. And that one flu vaccine about a decade or two ago that was in short supply. Remember that one? They were just giving them to older people or people that needed it most. I got it because we had a nurse in the family, and she supplied her family. But other than that, I’ve never suffered for a lack of vaccine.

I’ll ask my doctor about it. Because I think it’s fairly obvious I had to have had chickenpox.

[Smyrna]

@tnt

It was 95% effective against infection against the original strain.

Unfortunately, the virus mutated.

Fortunately, it’s still highly effective against death, particularly if you boost it annually.

But isn’t it perverse that the same people that think IV. and Hyd. are ignored because trump mentioned them are (generally) the same ones who claim the Trump enabled vaccine is bunk?

…and that is absolute bull ■■■■ !

[Samm]

@Smyrna

Now that the COVID influencers have a weakened control on the information we receive medically…here’s what is a recent medical conclusion as to the effectiveness of ivermectin fighting COVID.

The prespecified threshold for the clinical utility of ivermectin was a 37.5% difference, as compared with placebo, in the relative risk of a primary-outcome event, a threshold that is probably too conservative for a drug such as ivermectin. The relative risk estimates in the trial were compatible with reductions of up to 30% in the risk of hospitalization or prolonged observation and 51% in the risk of death with ivermectin.

So if it reduced the risk of death by 51% and this is a number that can now be trusted, how many died due to Fauci and company’s misinformation and downright lies? Now consider, our government wants to control “misinformation, disinformation and hate speech”. Uh, huh…I would trust them with that. How about you?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2207995

Remember how anyone who even suggested the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid was vilified by the Left (with the support of the Media) as right-wing loonies?

[Samm]

@Toll_Collector

I guess it’s better that way. Virtually no disruption to your life at that age. And the younger you are, the lesser it hits you? Hell, I don’t even remember it.

I don’t think that’s true. I came very close to dying of Whooping Cough when I was under one year old (according to my Mom.) Not being able to remember much about having measles, mumps and chicken pox because you were very young, does not mean you were not very sick. And hardly anyone I know has clear memories from before they were five.

[Samm]

@tnt

Fortunately, it’s still highly effective against death, particularly if you boost it annually.

The Pfizer vaccine and boosters gave me an irregular heartbeat and dropped my pulse to under 50. Fortunately, eight months or so after my last booster, it all returned to normal. No more boosters for me.

Incidentally, my only confirmed case of Covid came less than two months after my last booster. Good thing I got it, huh.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Ben_Natuf

@tnt

I don’t think a letter to the editor should be taken as gospel. The study those letters are referring to concluded Iv. was not affective in treating covid.

brought to you by the same people who told you studies said masks were effective.

“science” is broken

The studies on masks against covid - which, you know, had to happen in real time - concluded N95 masks are pretty effective against transmissions, and other masks are only slightly effective.

You’re mad that no one knew the particulars against a brand new virus?

That’s where you are wrong. They knew at the time that the simple paper and cloth masks being encouraged were ineffective at everything to do with transmission or reception of the virus except to limit the range of virus bearing microdroplets of spittle coming out of the mouths and noses of infected people. It says so right on the packaging.

Remember Fauci showing up for a news conference one day wearing two masks? He knew …

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

the write up is putting lipstick on a pig. This is the study that showed surgical masks, when worn properly, were 11% effective. They are trying to say that 11% is meaningful. It’s not, particularly because no-one wears masks properly.

I also notice that your article fails to mention the results for cloth masks, which were negligeable. In fact, the raw numbers were worse but not outside PER

Fauci demonstrating the proper wearing of a mask …

[tnt]

@Samm

The Pfizer vaccine and boosters gave me an irregular heartbeat and dropped my pulse to under 50. Fortunately, eight months or so after my last booster, it all returned to normal. No more boosters for me.

Incidentally, my only confirmed case of Covid came less than two months after my last booster. Good thing I got it, huh.

I’m glad it leveled itself out. Did your doctor think it was caused by your booster?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

The Pfizer vaccine and boosters gave me an irregular heartbeat and dropped my pulse to under 50. Fortunately, eight months or so after my last booster, it all returned to normal. No more boosters for me.

Incidentally, my only confirmed case of Covid came less than two months after my last booster. Good thing I got it, huh.

I’m glad it leveled itself out. Did your doctor think it was caused by your booster?

She wouldn’t speculate. But she agreed that the coincidence was too strong to say it wasn’t.

[tnt]

@Samm

@tnt

I’m glad it leveled itself out. Did your doctor think it was caused by your booster?

She wouldn’t speculate. But she agreed that the coincidence was too strong to say it wasn’t.

Was the irregular heartbeat PVCs? I had to deal with them - still do a little bit. Super freaky and scary, but my doc was like ‘they aren’t a big deal’. Freak me out though.

Mine were caused by - get this - stopping caffeine after evidently being addicted to it. So strange.

I’ve never heard of the vaccines being linked to a lower heart rate, but who knows…

Heart ■■■■ is scary.