Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It’s a “low confidence” conclusion by the DofE with other agencies mostly inconclusive or concluding natural origin (only FBI aligns with DofE at this point).

This administration nor the previous have put out any definitive statement about the origin give the lack or evidence and lack of cooperation.

None of this changes the fact that this was a deadly worldwide pandemic and that countries who successfully implemented mitigation and effective vaccination strategies did better than those that did not.

Of course it's inconclusive. The WHO wanted to conduct a thorough investigation in Wuhan itself from the outset of this. And guess what, the Chinese government firmly said no. That's suspicious in and of itself. I guarantee you that if this outbreak had originated in ANY western country China would have been threatening those countries to allow for a proper WHO investigation.

The lab leak theory also makes a lot of sense. The virology institute in Wuhan had just undertaken a physical move from one location to another. Having been involved in a lab move in the past, I can say for certain that not everything works perfectly in one of those moves. Mistakes are made, samples are allowed to thaw that should not (freezer failures are not uncommon in labs - go home one day, come back the next to find that a -80 freezer is beeping like crazy and has thawed).

You do realize that the FBI also chimed in and said they believe based upon the data they have seen that this is the most likely cause?
 
Of course it's inconclusive. The WHO wanted to conduct a thorough investigation in Wuhan itself from the outset of this. And guess what, the Chinese government firmly said no. That's suspicious in and of itself. I guarantee you that if this outbreak had originated in ANY western country China would have been threatening those countries to allow for a proper WHO investigation.

Reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek thought and comment I made a while back...

...Given how helpful and transparent the Chinese have been with the investigation into the origins of the virus there is no way Corona came from the Wuhan lab!
 
What is the current SOC for COVID. My daughter just tested positive in Germany and I’m telling her to see her doctor and get PAXLOVID but she says they won’t prescribe it without a risk factor. She started symptoms yesterday. My understanding is it has to be started within a couple days of onset.
It's five days. (One of my friends got it recently and just made it under the five day limit.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: madodel
What is the current SOC for COVID. My daughter just tested positive in Germany and I’m telling her to see her doctor and get PAXLOVID but she says they won’t prescribe it without a risk factor. She started symptoms yesterday. My understanding is it has to be started within a couple days of onset.
Currently it is indicated for people who are at high risk for progression to severe Covid (hospitalization and death). The list of high risk conditions is long (check out CDC), but not everyone needs it. And, as mentioned, must be within 5 days.

Anecdotally, I would say the incidence of rebound after treatment is pretty high (like over 50%, maybe?).
 
Great video. Anti-vaccers will love the first paper discussed (albeit n=1 and unique subject), but then watch the later paper discussion. It deflates the first paper’s assumptions fairly well:
What qualifies one as an anti vaxxer at this point? I’m just curious since many of the things that got people labeled anti-vaxxer at some point during the pandemic have been shown to be true (vaccines don’t significantly stop spread, you can still catch it if vaccinated, natural immunity from prior infection is comparable to vaccine over a certain period, vaccines do cause some increased risk of heart related issues particularly in younger men).

I’ve had 4 shots. Two standard series and two boosters. My first shot put me in the hospital with ventricular bigeminy after having never had a single heart issue in my life previously. It resolved relatively quickly but I’ve still had issues with PVCs periodically since.

I think on the whole the evidence supports getting vaccinated even for a (relatively) young healthy man like myself. But I wouldn’t fault a guy in his 20s that declines and I certainly don’t support mandates or firing people. Does that make me an anti-vaxxer in 2023?

I mean I was a “racist” for believing that the lab leak theory was at least reasonably plausible in 2021 (according to the lead coronavirus reporter for a small publication called the New York Times)

B3BEF3E3-EFDE-4246-9FD4-CC1B96B6247D.png


so it is clear that these labels can change over time. It’s almost as if we should be careful labeling large groups of people with nuanced views with dismissive labels. But nah…
 
Last edited:
What qualifies one as an anti vaxxer at this point? I’m just curious since many of the things that got people labeled anti-vaxxer at some point during the pandemic have been shown to be true (vaccines don’t significantly stop spread, you can still catch it if vaccinated, natural immunity from prior infection is comparable to vaccine over a certain period, vaccines do cause some increased risk of heart related issues particularly in younger men).

I’ve had 4 shots. Two standard series and two boosters. My first shot put me in the hospital with ventricular bigeminy after having never had a single heart issue in my life previously. It resolved relatively quickly but I’ve still had issues with PVCs periodically since.

I think on the whole the evidence supports getting vaccinated even for a (relatively) young healthy man like myself. But I wouldn’t fault a guy in his 20s that declines and I certainly don’t support mandates or firing people. Does that make me an anti-vaxxer in 2023?

I mean I was a “racist” for believing that the lab leak theory was at least reasonably plausible in 2021 (according to the lead coronavirus reporter for a small publication called the New York Times)

...

so it is clear that these labels can change over time. It’s almost as if we should be careful labeling large groups of people with nuanced views with dismissive labels. But nah…
So I'll share an anecdote from my own experience with an anti-vaxxer yesterday. I think she fills the bill.

We were at the recycle center unloading and this woman comes up to us and asks us for cardboard we were dropping off (she didn't want to fish it out of the bin). She's moving and needs it to box up some pictures. For some reason (she's younger than we are) she expects us to carry it from our truck to her car (a red flag there) but OK.

Then, in parting, over her shoulder she says "by the way, if you are thinking of getting that vaccine, don't! I have a friend who is probably going to lose their leg because of it!"

We're like, "what"?
I say, "I got the vaccine 4 times and I still have both legs!"

"I got it once," she says. Two good legs.

I'm like, "My neighbor didn't get the vaccine. He died in the ICU of Covid a year ago. His wife, who also wasn't vaccinated, brought it home from the grocery store to him. She died in December of cardiac complications of Long Covid."

"But I guess they still had 4 legs between them when they died."

The vaccines are still great at keeping people out of the ICU and from dying. Yes, they aren't perfect, in that they don't prevent spread perfectly. Vaccination for an RNA virus was never likely to do that, although honest people hoped it would. And yes, if you survive a case, you have immunity that is roughly equivalent.

But there's this thing now where some people are focusing on the small risks with the vaccines, and ignoring what they can do. This is letting perfect be the enemy of good. Which, in the long run, is a poor philosophy.

And that's what I said to the woman in the parking lot. "Nothing in this world is perfect."

We should all be objective and do the best we can with the data we have as it comes, and realize we don't know everything yet. We should also assume that most people have good intentions, and that everyone is wrong once in a while and we should be ready to learn from our mistakes.
 
So I'll share an anecdote from my own experience with an anti-vaxxer yesterday. I think she fills the bill.

We were at the recycle center unloading and this woman comes up to us and asks us for cardboard we were dropping off (she didn't want to fish it out of the bin). She's moving and needs it to box up some pictures. For some reason (she's younger than we are) she expects us to carry it from our truck to her car (a red flag there) but OK.

Then, in parting, over her shoulder she says "by the way, if you are thinking of getting that vaccine, don't! I have a friend who is probably going to lose their leg because of it!"

We're like, "what"?
I say, "I got the vaccine 4 times and I still have both legs!"

"I got it once," she says. Two good legs.

I'm like, "My neighbor didn't get the vaccine. He died in the ICU of Covid a year ago. His wife, who also wasn't vaccinated, brought it home from the grocery store to him. She died in December of cardiac complications of Long Covid."

"But I guess they still had 4 legs between them when they died."

The vaccines are still great at keeping people out of the ICU and from dying. Yes, they aren't perfect, in that they don't prevent spread perfectly. Vaccination for an RNA virus was never likely to do that, although honest people hoped it would. And yes, if you survive a case, you have immunity that is roughly equivalent.

But there's this thing now where some people are focusing on the small risks with the vaccines, and ignoring what they can do. This is letting perfect be the enemy of good. Which, in the long run, is a poor philosophy.

And that's what I said to the woman in the parking lot. "Nothing in this world is perfect."

We should all be objective and do the best we can with the data we have as it comes, and realize we don't know everything yet. We should also assume that most people have good intentions, and that everyone is wrong once in a while and we should be ready to learn from our mistakes.
You're so elitist with your highfalutin medical education. And you probably took a statistics course once and now you think you are better than people who just make stuff up.
 
Not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?
I didn't have time to watch the whole thing, but I looked up the article. Did he quote this part of the Author's conclusions?

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.
I saw him quote another part of it. It doesn't sound as conclusive as what he had to say in the beginning.
 
Not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?
Cloth masks are 50% effective at best. Surgical masks are a bit better at 65%. N95 masks are 95%. No mask is effective if not worn correctly. Frequent 20 second hand washing is also needed. KN95 may or may not be effective depending upon the manufacturer’s ethics.
 
Cloth masks are 50% effective at best. Surgical masks are a bit better at 65%. N95 masks are 95%. No mask is effective if not worn correctly. Frequent 20 second hand washing is also needed. KN95 may or may not be effective depending upon the manufacturer’s ethics.

SPOT on. There was a PRE-pandemic study performed of different kinds of masks, very well done and in the hospital setting, and this echo's those results. Although N95 wasn't quite 95% effective, was closer to 80%, but it varied by pathogen.
 
Not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?
Did you look at his previous videos? He's an anti-vaxxer conspiracy pusher. One video of his was about excess deaths which I thought would have been about the millions of excess deaths caused by COVID, but when I watched it he pushes that vaccines cause excess deaths.
 
My casual observations of mask wearing crowds is more than 95% of people are wearing cloth or surgical masks and a high percentage of those aren't worn properly, i.e. below the nose or completely under the chin. These people would probably claim they are "wearing" a mask. They also frequently pull them down and take them off, keeping them on their wrist or in their pocket until they go inside someplace where they are required. These practices make most mask wearing basically useless.
 
My casual observations of mask wearing crowds is more than 95% of people are wearing cloth or surgical masks and a high percentage of those aren't worn properly, i.e. below the nose or completely under the chin. These people would probably claim they are "wearing" a mask. They also frequently pull them down and take them off, keeping them on their wrist or in their pocket until they go inside someplace where they are required. These practices make most mask wearing basically useless.
Exactly. We've been through this discussion multiple times before. Cloth masks are the least protective, followed by surgical masks and when Germany required masks these were not allowed once there was an abundant supply of high quality masks like the European equivalent to the N95. And if people don't wear them correctly or wear them after they are moist they are essentially useless. KN95 can be counterfeit but I still prefer those unless I know I'm wearing a mask for a long time like on a plane, then I wear an N95. My wife is sick of wearing masks 10 hours a day at the hospital, so I understand why some people just want it to go away, but they do help decrease transmission.