Coronavirus: Miles away from ordinary.

Fuck Dr. Drew.

 

That’s…not what he said. There’s a clip on YouTube from his broadcast today. Don’t link the guy paraphrasing him; link the clip of what he actually said. The only time he went full retard is when he ranted on America being the first and only country to govern by the people.

Rogan has had virologists on. He’s had multiple people from different sides of the debate. He also goes to great pains to stress that he himself is an idiot and invites everyone to think for themselves and not rely on a stand up comic meat head.

We’ve reached a point where if you don’t tow the party line and actually try to criticize the status quo, you should shut the fuck up and stop being stupid. THAT is the heart of what scares me.

 

She’s just acting mayor and really wants to get elected to a full term. She’s trying to out-progressive the other asswipes she’s running against, which means declaring anything and everything in the city a symptom of systemic racism. A system which she is currently in charge of. She’s not as popular as she thinks she is and will probably lose against her main competition.

 

Joe Rogan does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on any COVID-related misinformation. He has, at various times, said that masks were ineffective, said that they were for "bitches," said that young, healthy people shouldn't get the vaccine, said that it was just a "bad flu," said that lockdowns were ineffective...

The fact that he says he's not a doctor isn't an excuse. If he's not a doctor, he should shut the fuck up about it. You don't get a platform of millions of people and then have no responsibility for the misinformation you spread.

Joe Rogan can fuck right off.

 

We can debate the validity of whatever the scientific specifics are, but we should ALL be completely fucking appalled at the idea of a vaccine passport. Know two things as certain: the government will never relinquish a power once it's enacted, and it will never walk back a tax once it's applied. So we're going to have the government build or contract to build an app that everyone must download (or carry a scan-able card, TBD), and you'll have to scan it to enter all government offices, public venues and - presumably - businesses may also sign on to implement it. Oh and you have to scan to travel or to move across provincial lines. Oh and if it pings back that you should quarantine, we'll send the police to your house to make sure you do. Sorry, hard no from me. Again, I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated: fuck. That. Shit. No. I object completely and totally. Rogan being equally as upset about that facet of it makes sense.

I'm not going to wade into an argument on whatever the scientific facts are; that's above my pay grade. What everyone seems to agree with, though - indeed, people on this board keep saying it - is that we must keep all these measures in place because vaccines are imperfect and don't stop infection 100% of the time. That is, quite literally, our current reality.

Yes, this is true. Yet we haven't done that for the flu. Because each disease is unique and different types of diseases respond to different treatments and vaccines. Without agreeing or disagreeing with whatever Rogan is on about, this isn't Polio. It is acting more like the flu with different strains, and a stochastic inoculation doesn't seem to be a lifelong magic bullet solution.

So...are you saying that the vaccine seems to be really effective, and that even if you catch COVID after inoculation you are far more likely to have reduced severity and avoid hospital intervention? Because if that's the case, then everyone who doesn't want to catch COVID should just get a shot and those who don't can play Russian roulette with their lives and if they die, they die. Personally, I'm all for looking at those who catch it now (and who turned down the opportunity to get vaccinated) and, as they gasp on a ventilator and their lungs shut down, shrug my shoulders.

I can't help myself...

Masks are highly ineffective at stopping any kind of spread. Whatever study you read is murky at best, and when I google it there's very little that was put out after, say, fall of 2020. If every single individual used an N95 mask at all times when in a public indoor space? Yes, I would argue that would help. It's why you see masks help in hospitals, where the mask itself and the knowledge of how to use it are both of high quality. Wearing an old t-shirt that your wife sewed straps onto and having your nose poke out when you're walking around Walmart does zip. I like to imagine a hockey net, and then someone turning a garden hose on and spraying the net. How much water does the net stop? That's a non-medical mask, improperly worn for you. I think masks at best work as a placebo, and perhaps cause a certain amount of physical distance just with their presence. Trying to tease out how much good "masks" do - as we currently use them - is really hard.

If you look up any government website on masks, they all say something like, "they should be used in conjunction with other social distancing measures and as the law requires. Masks are an important part of keeping everyone safe." Most sites, the US included, go on to say that if you're vaccinated you don't need one, unless the law requires it.

I got nothing for that. He was probably doing a bit and it didn't come off as funny. But *shrug*

Young, healthy people don't really seem to be effected by COVID. Those under 50, in Canada at least, make up almost 70% of the overall number who have ever been infected, yet they account for something like 2.2% of the deaths, and of that 2.2% who died I believe most had greater than two significant co-morbidities. If you're young and healthy, the reason to get the vaccine is to protect the old and the weak. Not because you yourself are at risk of dying from COVID.

I've been having an internal debate bringing this up, but fuck it. We're this deep already. Has anyone else noticed that the death rate is mostly unchanged? In Canada, at least. It jumped by an additional 12.8k people in 2020, but in 2016 it also jumped by 12.1k; in 2014 it went up by 13.11k. So yes, more people died in 2020 than 2019, but not so much more that it was out of line with the weighted average over the last 10 years. I think it's going to take YEARS to understand the statistics of what happened, because what we also don't know just yet is how bad the suicide and drug use deaths got thanks to the lockdowns (which I would argue belong under the "COVID death" banner). Just a thing I find interesting.

That being said, it's very different from the flu in terms of what happens to you if you have lingering symptoms. And right now we have no meaningful way of predicting who will shrug this thing off without a bother, and who will go the next five years unable to taste or think clearly. Again, if you prefer not to gamble...get a vaccine.

I do have a problem with this sentiment. So...only doctors have an opinion? Or if you have a large platform, you're obligated to parrot the status quo? How do we have meaningful debate on a complex issue if only the people who all agree with each other are afforded the opportunity to speak and be heard by the masses?

Rogan has unquestionably had tinfoil hat guests on. God save me if I ever watch Eddie Bravo speak about something that isn't a jiu-jitsu technique. Having said that, listening to people who completely disagree with my own perspective helps me to either see where my arguments are lacking, or weed out the idiots I never need to listen to again. I'm the same way with Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder; I could not be more ideologically different than either of those guys on most things (religion, abortion, foreign policy, the type of government preferred, etc), yet I find it really valuable to listen to what the "other side" thinks.

Go ahead and say you disagree with them and think they're morons...such is your right and you could actually be correct. But saying they should shut up and only specific other people should be allowed to talk is something I can't get behind.

 

This is just repetition of the same bad information that I've disagreed with repeatedly in this thread.

This is not the reality. The fact that most of the time a vaccinated person does not experience a severe infection does not mean the unvaccinated are not a public health threat. And again, this ignores the fact that vulnerable segments of the population are either not eligible for the vaccine, or cannot receive it safely.

In addition, some breakthrough infections are still resulting in "long COVID" according to an Israeli study.

Citation needed. The fact that no new studies have been published after "fall of 2020" (why is that a benchmark?) is not relevant.

Because there are lots of papers about mask effectiveness. The fact that masks are not 100% effective or have variability is not a reason to stop using them. There have been studies of surgical masks which show them to be effective (not N95). Showing it may reduce infection severity and viral load. Showing that many cloth masks are comparable to surgical masks and have similar reductions in risk of infection. The meta analysis agrees that masks should be effective, and are effective; comparing mask mandated areas to non-mandated areas showed a drop in infections, and comparing masked settings to similarly-dense unmasked settings also showed a drop. That meta paper is enormous and has dozens of studies that indicate mask effectiveness.

If you'd like to reject the use of masks as ineffective, you need to provide some specific literature. There are at least two studies about mask ineffectiveness that have both been retracted because of bad methods and inaccurate data.

This is just a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that's effective.

There's a theme in your posts here. The theme is: "if it's not perfect, don't bother." Lack of perfection does not mean something isn't worth doing.

Of course younger, healthier people are dying less from COVID-19. Nobody said otherwise. But young people are still dying, and even moreso with the variants. Brazil, who was the presumed source of one of the variants, saw their death rates for young people double/triple. The University of Minnesota published a paper showing that there were about 12,000 excess deaths last year from people aged 24-44, with 38% being directly attributed to COVID-19. How many deaths are acceptable before it's a grotesque mischaracterization to say, "young people shouldn't get vaccinated"?

Link your sources, please, so that I don't have to root around. But I'm not entirely sure what your point is here and I don't think it has relevance to the rest of the discussion we're having so I think I'm going to not chase down numbers too extensively.

Excess deaths were dramatically higher, by percentage, in some countries rather than in others. You can play with data here.

I didn't say those things. What I said was that "I'm not a doctor" is not an excuse. You don't get to make claims to your audience of millions of people and then laugh it off as "I'm just a dumb meat head" when those claims are dangerous and wrong. If you're just a dumb meat head, you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation and shouldn't be exacerbating the FUD around this issue by making unfounded claims. If you're going to make unfounded claims, then you goddamn well better get your feet held to the fire when they're wrong.

You have a platform, that gives you a responsibility. If you use that platform to spread bullshit, and someone says that you're a colossal asshole for doing so, you shouldn't be rushing to his defense and saying, "well he says he's just an uneducated meat head."

Again, not what I said. I just don't find it acceptable to use your platform to spread uneducated bullshit to the masses and then hide behind your lack of education to shirk responsibility for why people listened to you.

 

I've said before in this thread - I'm all for vaccines being a mandatory part of your job if you work with such populations.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, as of 30 April 2021 (which is admittedly dated), out of 163 MILLION people fully vaccinated, there were 10,262 people who suffered a COVID infection. Of those people, 160 died. The vaccine appears to be extremely effective if these numbers continue to hold. Which is why I keep coming back to my point: unvaccinated people pose the greatest risk to other unvaccinated people. And, as I've said, if you're fucking without a condom by this point then go ahead and suffer the consequences.

I brought up the Fall 2020 point because I find it interesting that most of the stories were published in the early panic when no one new anything. Once it became clear that this disease specifically targeted certain demographics, new info became harder to come by.

All stats I listed regarding Canadian infection rates are directly from the Government Canada site: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

Meta-analysis looking at 21 different studies that concluded there appears to be some benefit to masking (maybe), but they are at best a supplemental measure: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/

CDC study looking at cloth face masks: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

My original point is not that masks aren't effective; it is that the way we currently use them is. Healthcare providers in a clinical setting with professionally manufactured and rated masks? Yes, effective. Single layer cloth masks that you wear partially over your chin when shopping? Not so much. You say that no one is advocating that but this is how people are actually using them. My point isn't even to not use masks; go nuts if you want to. My point is that people should have a choice.

It's interesting that you see it this way. I see it as, "You are NEVER going to get perfection. Let's not implement a bunch of draconian shit that will never go away and gives the government even more power. Protect yourself, or risk the consequences."

The arguments I've seen that call for everyone to continue masking and social distancing, that call for vaccine passports and shunning those from society who don't get inoculated, they all seem to have this, "it's only temporary and if everyone would just do as they're told we could go back to normal." My argument is that this is NOT going away. COVID will be like the flu; with us forever (to some degree). By accepting that, and putting the onus on the individual to protect themselves rather than the state, we can stop pushing for measures that will not give us a utopian solution and in fact greatly erode our rights.

Answer: way more than current. So far there have been 573 deaths in Canada from COVID of people under 50 years old. Most of them who were medically fragile in some way prior to catching the disease, and almost all before vaccine use became widespread. In a country with a population of +36 million people, 573 deaths across 1.5 years is not even a statistical blip. It sounds harsh and yes, every death is tragic, but you cannot let numbers that small dictate government mandates. In my opinion.

The threat of death should not be a reason for younger people to get vaccinated. Young people should get a shot, if they wish, to avoid infecting the elderly or the vulnerable and to avoid potential complications with COVID. I don’t think science understands what causes the long haul symptoms or can predict who will suffer them. Again, if you catch it at this point it’s on you.

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Except to say that censorship of any kind is a very slippery slope. In Rogan's case, I think he would be the first one to say that he never in a million years dreamed he would become as big as he has or have the reach that he does. He got there, somehow, because a huge chunk of the population appreciates what he has to say. A big enough demographic, and one that is capable of listening to three or four three-hour podcasts a week, which isn't easy to put out and the listener has to have a certain amount of intelligence to keep up.

Personally, if I talked for five hours a day for half the week with a new person each time, I would say some exquisitely stupid stuff occasionally. If it turns out that suddenly it catches fire and +100 million people start listening? I'd argue that it's on the individual to listen to what I'm saying and decide for themselves if it's bullshit. The problem I see with Rogan is that very often people attribute shit to him that isn't true. It happened earlier in this thread when someone linked the click-bate headline rather the actual content of his podcast.

*Shrug* He's not any dumber than, say, CNN or Fox News. And unlike journalists, he's under no obligation to do anything other than entertain. If someone hears something stupid on one of his shows and they believe it, well, I have some land they can buy in Arizona with great ocean views.

If we were talking about the same vaccine record that you have to ask your mom for every 10 years or when you travel I'd have no issue. We're talking about daily contact tracing and prohibiting those who don't comply from working, traveling or using public spaces. Big difference, and I don't recall that happening with people who turn down a yearly flu shot.

DCC Edit: clarified an answer.

 

I'm glad you know the status of every immune system you come into contact with every day. Is there something I should look for? An indicative birthmark, perhaps? Do they wear name tags?

You're adding words that aren't there. There are no "maybes" and "at bests" or any data suggesting those words. Honestly, I'm not sure you read anything but the synopsis?

Quote: "The risk of influenza, SARS, and COVID-19 infection were reduced by 45%, 74%, and 96% by wearing masks, respectively, which were consistent with previous meta-analyses during the SARS outbreaks"

Yes, they are supplemental measures. Which is why I'm so insistent that everyone get vaccinated. But the science says that masks work, period.

Anyway, honestly, I can't continue this line of discussion because I find some of your views to just be... contrary to my moral code. I don't know how else to say it. 573 entirely preventable deaths is worth something. Public health is worth something, and it's literally the government's job to enforce it. I think it's morally repugnant to say, "well your very existence is now a threat to vulnerable (or even vaccinated) populations you come into contact with, but it's your choice, and I don't like the government, so whatever." They don't let you go to school without getting your vaccines for this very reason. I don't see a single viable reason why the Coronavirus vaccine, or mandated mask wearing, is any different. Go ahead and argue about contact tracing or GPS tracking, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about government mandated vaccines or masking to stop people from dying.

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to say that I'm not asking for Joe Rogan to be censored. He was called out for being an ignorant douchebag and you came to his defense saying that he's not supposed to be an expert. I'm saying that's not a defense. He has a platform, he said stupid shit, he should be held accountable for the stupid shit he says. If he says stupid enough shit that stops his sponsors from associating with him, well, thems the breaks. Free speech doesn't mean no consequences. Accidentally saying stupid things is worlds away from taking shit stances on public health issues that are killing people.

 

Rogan is an entertainer not a journalist (the old Jon Stewart “I’m on after crank puppets!” defense) or scientist and doesn’t owe any responsibility to his platform other than what he thinks will do best by it. The “freedom of speech” is not the same argument as “cancel culture/deplatforming/Twitter mob debates” the latter of which is just mob justice in a digital world and can be equally as harmful as government power (a debate for another time and place). He's not free from consequences but I guess the worst consequence he’s seen so far is finger waggings by nobodies on Twitter and low traffic message boards. He’s survived the Twitter mobs before and has persevered because his concept is very simple, provide engaging conversations with a wide variety of perspectives. I laugh when I see traditional media pundits wring their hands about his reach and platform as they languishing on dying models that rely on divisive polarizing techniques that are contributing to their own downfall.

 

Of course you don't. If the nature of your job dictates that you owe a fiduciary duty to people you look after, and those people could reasonably be expected to have fragile health, then I think it's reasonable to expect that a higher degree of care be shouldered by the people who work in those positions. If it's some random dude on the street, then his health is his problem, just as your health is your own problem. A line would be crossed if, say, you knew you were infected and continued to expose yourself to the public. In that case, it's very similar to a person who knows they're HIV positive and then doesn't warn their partner. But in terms of a plain old communicable disease and the amount of care you owe a stranger, I think COVID should be looked at in the same vein as the flu.

Why, yes, I did add my own commentary to a post I was making. And I would hope the synopsis contains no information that the body of the text does not.

You and I agree - if you're worried about infection, get a vaccination. And science first said don't worry about masks. Then they said we said that because there was a shortage of masks. Then they said to wear N95. Then they said any mask will do. No joke, here's the policy my area is currently under: my mom and I had lunch at a restaurant today. We had to wear masks - any kind, there's no criteria that the mask has to pass - as we walked through the patio on the restaurant. Then we were seated, and we took the masks off. But we had to put the masks on to walk back through the open air patio if we wanted to use the washroom. What the numbers say of masking efficacy and the policies I see put in place for people's day-to-day lives are vastly different. There's no sense to it at all.

Two things about this: first, regarding school, they do let you opt out. On medical or religious grounds. And for the most part, people have their kids vaccinated. Second, spare me the pearl-clutching and "morally repugnant" remarks. When we're talking the macro level where we have to set policies for +35 million people, there's no choice you get to make that people aren't going to die. 573 people are a tragedy to the families, yes. No question. But as a society we have WAAAAAY worse things that we just let happen without derailing the economy and implementing whole cloth policies that are nothing short of rights violations. Since 2016, there's been over 21,000 people killed by opioids alone. 77% of those people were men between the ages of 20 and 44. Do we force everyone to carry Narcon with them as a result? Do we shut down the industries related to opioid production while this gets figured out? Do they even allow clean injection sites so that maybe we can stop the bleeding a bit? Nope. So there's quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here.

There's no choice you get to make in a pandemic where people won't die. You don't get to pick a utopian solution. What you can hope to do is maximize the benefit and minimize the harm.

I do. It's a completely new vaccine using a new technology for delivery, and if people would rather wait two or three years to ensure that whatever the unintended side effects are align with their willingness to accept risk, then that's a fair thing and they aren't assholes for doing so. They are, however, gambling on themselves that they will survive an infection with minimal permanent damage. I don't think that waiting or rejecting this vaccine, especially if you're under 50 and in good health, is anything beyond the pale.

This round-table discussion outlines it way better than I'm doing on this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY

I'm not suggesting he should be free from consequences for whatever his actions are. If sponsors hear what he's saying and walk? That's the free market, baby. But that wasn't what you were saying or implying (forgive me if I read you wrong). You were saying that only experts should be allowed to speak on it and Rogan should STFU because he has no idea what he's talking about. THAT is what I object to. Stifling an opinion because it's contrary.

Imagine two years from now, and it turns out that, say, Bret Weinstein was correct. That the vaccine itself was effective but that the first generation of doses had some horrible side effects that impacted the heart or brain or reproductive system of some percentage of recipients. And all of those people say something like, "I wish I'd never taken this vaccine." And all the pharma companies are immune to lawsuits, so they aren't coming to the table. Will we look back in this moment and say, "We listened to all the experts and no one could have predicted this," or will we look back and say, "Everyone told us to trust this vaccine, and we did without question."

Now there's a difference between, say, Eddie Bravo and Bret Weinstein. The listener has to make that distinction and hopefully it's not that hard. But to suggest that people with dissenting opinions shut the fuck up and go away really scares me.