placeholder

Even though your comment is irrelevant I decided to check it out. Here are Media Bias Fact Check's respective evaluations of MSN and The Washington Examiner Overall, we rate MSN News strongly Left-Center biased, with most stories coming from Left-Center sources. We also rate them High for factual reporting because the majority of sources used are credible media outlets.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msn-com/ Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

It's clear that i84teen comes from the Pavlovian school of critical thinking. Show him a trigger word or phrase and you'll get the same response regardless of its context.

"Millions of men" may sound impressive but how many millions of men do not? How many millions of women take aspirin? What about the greater susceptibility of men to covid ? What about the fact that aspirin is recommended for women, too, though not to the same degree? Without this information your earlier claim that "A reduction in serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths in the tens of percent would show up as men suffering COVID significantly less than women. The data on illness, hospitalizations and deaths does not show this." kind of falls apart.

It may be censored but it certainly deserves to be mocked.

True only if you count certain regions of the world. But the planet as a whole did not have a warmer period 1000 year ago. ‘Medieval Warm Period’ Wasn’t Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says Historical data from Greenland’s glaciers helps debunk another favored theory of climate denialists. The tenth to thirteenth centuries, when temperatures in Europe were unusually warm, was also a time of relative cold in the western North Atlantic, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science Advances. The findings further undermine the notion of a global Medieval Warm Period that climate change denialists often hold up to support the false idea that today’s global warming is a result of natural, non-manmade causes. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwnoqLBhD4ARIsAL5JedISAdwqBIj7Ml_GdYGnyiI2dzeYJmiBjjQ32HBRkG-cDjZPrz6B-NsaAmeZEALw_wcB

Which effectiveness would that be? From the article: "The study echoes findings published by Pfizer and Kaiser Permanente in Lancet earlier in the week, showing the vaccine’s effectiveness drops from 88 to 47 percent after six months. This study also proved the vaccine 90% effective for at least six months at preventing hospitalization of infected people." https://www.israel21c.org/israeli-study-pfizer-vaccine-wears-off-after-6-months/

What we do know is that some viruses actually do cause illnesses or deaths years after an infection. That has never been the case with a vaccine So where would a rational person construe from that?

I read that dubious article you linked to. The AP got it right. But even if not, the fact is, that networks like Fox news repeatedly and unapologetically offer false information. Everyone occasionally gets something wrong. But without taking into account frequency, posts like yours amount only to cherry-picking

Cherry picking much?

What are you on about "You don't know what I was vaccinated for". Who cares what you were vaccinated for. This discussion is about covid not measles, or varicella or mumps What doctor will tell you that care is routinely rationed? Stop making things up If that were the case, why have several governors issued declarations allowing hospitals to ration care? . Medical facilities are rationing treatment (triage) in states where Covid rates are highest. Once Again Some States are Choosing Who Gets Covid-19 Care https://publicintegrity.org/health/coronavirus-and-inequality/states-ration-disability-covid-care/ I did enjoy that comment of yours that I wouldn't bother to read your link especially in light of the fact that you clearly didn't read your own link to stats for world diseases and I clearly did. Remember ? You invoked statistics for 2019 as evidence to address a situation in 2020? And now you're doing it again. Yes the US Dept of health does publish a running average of hospital utilization. And even now it shows Alabama and other states as using over 85% of their ICU beds despite that fact that covid cases are on their way down in that state. Any prolonged level over 85% is not a good thing. COVID-19: What it means for a hospital ICU to be at capacity Capacity refers to the percent of ICU beds currently occupied. Generally, an ICU is considered functionally full when it reaches 85 percent capacity. Right now, many ICUs in the state are running at over 90 percent full, and based on what we know about positive test rates, they’re about to get busier. https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/covid-19/2020/11/covid-19-what-it-means-for-a-hospital-icu-to-be-at-capacity/ Do you follow the news at all? COVID-19 patients end up in other states — at great expense — as Idaho hospitals fill up https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/coronavirus/article254873817.html#storylink=cpy Alabama out of ICU beds, Huntsville Hospital ICU over capacity https://whnt.com/news/coronavirus/alabama-out-of-icu-beds-huntsville-hospital-icu-over-capcity/ Alaska allows hospitals to ration care amid COVID spike https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-business-alaska-health-1500db35e56b688e9cf3e0eea1d2a114 Covid Hospitalizations Hit Crisis Levels in Southern I.C.U.s https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/14/us/covid-hospital-icu-south.html

Not really. Just because aspirin may be used more by men than women by itself isn't dispositive. What percentage of middle-aged men actually take baby aspirin daily? In addition you are assuming that men and women are equally afflicted by covid. But in fact statistics show that men are more vulnerable. Maybe the disparity would be even greater were this cohort of men not taking aspirin.

Nonsense. You cited those numbers to prove that covid wasn't one of the top 10 causes of death. Do you understand that the Covid pandemic was barely underway in 2019?

Because instead of getting vaccinated, some misguided people think this stuff will protect them instead. Not even the vast majority of those dubious studies claim that Ivermectin will come close to protecting people as will vaccination. It just goes to show how far down the rabbit hole you've gone that you can't see this obvious point. And as for India, Uttar pradesh was the poster boy for India's success. Oddly enough, afterwards it was found that excess mortality in Uttar pradesh had jumped by 110%. Hmmmm....

I specified economically developed nations. Not developing nations, or in the case of some underdeveloping nations. That leaves Macron basically. You really think that the monarch of Monaco is seriously to be considered. A country that encomasses .81 sq miles. And as for Macron, France under him started very early with mask mandating and wearing https://www.businessinsider.com/macron-debuts-french-themed-face-mask-national-pride-2020-5

Here you go. You'll find an explanation of how it all works and directions to various sites. Good luck! https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/how-find/find-study-results#Posted

This is from the Johns Hopkins site TYPICAL VACCINE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE Each clinical trial phase follows completion of the prior phase Can take a long time to accumulate cases to assess vaccine efficacy outside pandemic Manufacturing capacity is scaled-up after phase III trial and regulatory approval ACCELERATED TIMELINE IN A PANDEMIC Some clinical trial phases are combined Cases accumulate rapidly to assess vaccine efficacy because of the pandemic Manufacturing capacity is scaled up during the clinical trials but at financial risk You notice that whereas in the traditional way of develoing a vaccine, it moves more slowly because it takes time to generate enough cases. Not the case with the current approach Also, usually clinical trials happen. Here they were combined. Also, instead of waiting for results the manufacturers built their factories while trials were still in progress. And finally, what isn't mentioned here, huge progress in mapping the virus and being able quickly to find its vulnerable areas, has hugely accelerated development.

Thanks.

It seems your plan is a good one. Ubonjoe, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of immigration rules agrees that your plan would work.

Well, at this point most of the opposition is more about political ideology than science. I'm sure there's a huge overlap between covid vaccine denialists and anthropogenic climate change denialists.

One cause does not rule out the other.

So Thai immigration won't check your documents on the way out to see if you were covered for Covid the entire time you were in the country?

Someone suggested that one could reduce the cost of insurance by booking a return flight for 30 days and then changing the return flight to a later date? Is this doable? Or will immigration check your documents on departure to make sure you have complied with the rules? And if they do catch you, what would be the penalty? I personally wouldn't try it, but someone in the Covid forum has suggested this ploy.

I don't think so. There were just 2 flagrant examples from the World's economically developed nations Trump and Johnson.

Well, you can compare them and in some instances it's not Johnson who emerges favorably. He nearly died because he refused to accept the advice of medical advisors and exposed himself recklessly to infection. And he set a harmful example in so doing. Can't say the same for Prayut.

And what about the risk unvaccinated children pose for educators? And health care workers?