Chomper Higgot

I agree with you that recognizing the actuality of the COVID situation, regardless of how that came about, has been a necessary step to dealing with it in the most positive way, and yes that includes taking the opportunities that have arisen. COVID has changed the world we live in, some of the changes are very positive for those able to take advantage of them. I however disagree with you on the value of expressing opinions on this forum on any other social media. The last 5 or 6 years have taught us all that social media and what is said on social media has very real and significant impacts on the world we live in.

No it is not necessary to know the health status and life style choices of all who die of COVID in order to determine the threat of COVID to a population. The larger the data sample size the more accurately it will represent the general population. Moreover, the data from one population may, and is, compared with the data from others. The comparative risks of serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID for fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are well documented. In the context of this thread all that is necessary to know is vaccination status. Don’t delude yourself otherwise.

You’d need some more information to determine if that were so. In particular you would need to know the absolute number of fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated. Odd though, you seem to have missed the 85% (helpfully colored red).

As I said earlier, no rational answer. Risking your own health in order to troll people you probably don’t know is far from rational.

They don’t know anything the general public doesn’t know, they’ve simply swallowed the anti-vaccine propaganda. I wish them the best of luck trying to find meaningful work where they don’t need to be vaccinated.

If you need to ask you almost certainly would not understand the explanation.

At the start of this pandemic and prior to science providing us with an understanding of how this disease is transmitted and then vaccines to fight its spread, doctors, nurses and medical staff were being killed by the virus in alarming numbers. Dr Li Wenliang who alerted the world of the existence of this disease was himself one of the many medics who it killed. Science based precautionary measures and vaccines have thankfully greatly reduced the risks medical staff face when providing health care to COVID patients, but sadly there are residual risks. That so many doctors, nurses and medical staff are willing to face these risks to provide healthcare to those in need is something we all ought to be very grateful for. RIP and thank you for your service.

I’d explain it to you, but since you clearly don’t know the definition of ‘propaganda’ and have completely missed on which side of the vaccine debate propaganda has and continues to be propagated, I feel any attempt at explanation would be futile. But don’t be despondent, observable reality is out there. The title of ‘idiot’ to which you say you would lay claim has already been taken by millions of people who refuse a safe effective vaccine in favor of anything the science denying extremists feed them. I suggest you ask the people refusing the vaccine why they do so, but don’t expect a rational answer.

Except vaccinated individuals are less likely to catch COVID and less likely to transmit it if they do.

Why would you self isolate? If you don’t feel sick you almost certainly won’t test for COVID and if you din’t feel sick how would you know you are infected?

Gibraltar has had a total of 98 COVID related deaths which is around 0.3% of the population. There’s a lot more ‘susceptible’ still around.

Ivermectin is not an effective medication for COVID - Period! How’s the list of countries you owe us coming along?

Regardless, be sure he’s not taking it for anything COVID related.

I hope for your own sake this is sarcasm.

You made the claim. It is for you to back it up. Name the countries.

THe subject of this thread is Ivermectin (a horse medicine). It has uses in human medicine which are supported by scientific clinical trials. None of those uses supported by scientific clinical trials include treatment or prevention of COVID.

Name the countries.

Lots of things are available at Thai Pharmacies.

I’ll wager the politicians and people with influence in these countries are not taking horse medicines and are themselves being vaccinated.

I suggest your brother takes a look at the Post Office travel insurance, they offer cover for pre-existing conditions and policies that cover long stay trips. As for 'expensive', his insurance is not expensive to you, unlike an illness he might have while staying with you. His insurance is protecting him and you.

Cast your mind back to the start of COVID discussions on this forum, we had daily threads on each miracle cure, information on where these could be bought, including maps and screenshots from 'street view'. This stuff was spreading faster than the virus.

You are presupposing the presence of rational thought. On the one hand there is zero evidence of Ivermectin being of any use at all in the fight against COVID while on the other hand there is substantial and verifiable evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective in reducing infection, transmission, the severity of illness, hospitalisations and deaths. There is no rational thought process that concludes on taking Ivermectin and refusing the vaccine.

The possession of medical qualifications is no guard against delusion.

Studies have been done, this horse medicine does not provide any protection against COVID. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-lacks-scientific-support-as-a-covid-19-drug-69049 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

I have an AETNA policy, sponsors to this sub forum. Their policies cover (up to the value of the policy) side affects from approved medical procedures, a vaccination is an ‘approved medical procedure’. I doubt any insurance company is offering policies for the specific risk of a reaction to the aCIVID-19 vaccines, but it would be good business. The risks are tiny, certainly very much lower than the risk of the disease.