Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 88 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I got vaccinated as soon as I was eligible.  When my state opened up I stopped wearing my mask.  The only places where masks are required now are medical facilities. 

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Covid is on the rise again and even though it's not required, I've started wearing my mask again when I go to the grocery store and I'm avoiding crowds.  I never stopped the sanitary measures like hand washing and wiping shopping carts down before use.

I've eaten in restaurants since the reopening a few times but now I am reluctant to do so any more until the numbers stop climbing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Well, yes... here's what that points to.     Sound advice, certainly, but not quite the sort of "reliable results" I was expecting when I clicked the link, I have to say.

49e14b3a056f2b7067a4a44d11ba94a3.png

 

 Is it stats & clinical trial info? No.  
7 doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston credited on the page.  I would take the information on that page as reliable when cited as I did to illustrate to Arielle how quickly google can provide information to bolster any side of a discussion.  Her information did point to a .gov source.  I believe MassGen is credible for my purpose.  
edit: I did actually skim other reputable sites before going with the MassGen one.  Those talked about cilia and mucus possibly serving as a barrier & mild COVID coughing being taken as morning smokers cough-hacking-wheezing.  

Edited by Pixie Kobichenko
Forgot to mention the other pages I looked at
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

& it’s interesting to point out that googling “smokers cough nicotine COVID” brings reliable results that would suggest that smoking-vaping increases chances of catching & spreading the virus.  https://www.massgeneral.org/children/vaping/smoking-vaping-and-covid-19

That is a pretty old article. It just isn't politically correct to mention smoking may have a benefit but certainly it should be pointed out that ex smokers and non smokers are at a higher risk.

"A so-called “living review” of the evidence, originally published as a pre-print this March but subsequently updated, similarly found that “Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, greater disease severity and mortality from COVID-19.”

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/08/does-smoking-prevent-covid-19-we-dont-know-some-journalists-dont-want-find-out-15588

And from a study done by the Mayo clinic:

"Patients who used only e-cigarettes were no more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis than those who don't smoke or vape. Those who smoked only cigarettes, on the other hand, were 57 percent less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. The results may come as a surprise to many as it was widely thought at the beginning of the pandemic that both smoking and vaping would cause more COVID-19 infections with worse symptoms."

https://reason.com/2021/06/11/study-finds-vapers-not-more-likely-to-get-covid-19/

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

I got vaccinated as soon as I was eligible.  When my state opened up I stopped wearing my mask.  The only places where masks are required now are medical facilities. 

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Covid is on the rise again and even though it's not required, I've started wearing my mask again when I go to the grocery store and I'm avoiding crowds.  I never stopped the sanitary measures like hand washing and wiping shopping carts down before use.

I've eaten in restaurants since the reopening a few times but now I am reluctant to do so any more until the numbers stop climbing.

 

You sound like you need a safe hug. 🤗 There. Hope that helped!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That is a pretty old article. It just isn't politically correct to mention smoking may have a benefit but certainly it should be pointed out that ex smokers and non smokers are at a higher risk.

"A so-called “living review” of the evidence, originally published as a pre-print this March but subsequently updated, similarly found that “Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, greater disease severity and mortality from COVID-19.”

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/08/does-smoking-prevent-covid-19-we-dont-know-some-journalists-dont-want-find-out-15588

And from a study done by the Mayo clinic:

"Patients who used only e-cigarettes were no more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis than those who don't smoke or vape. Those who smoked only cigarettes, on the other hand, were 57 percent less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. The results may come as a surprise to many as it was widely thought at the beginning of the pandemic that both smoking and vaping would cause more COVID-19 infections with worse symptoms."

https://reason.com/2021/06/11/study-finds-vapers-not-more-likely-to-get-covid-19/

Politically correct?  Really?  🙄  people are DYING & you have the audacity to bring political correctness into it?  (Aside from how I don’t understand how it is not politically correct)  

& if you’d like I can definitely find you something more recent.

People. Are. Dying.  
 

EDIT:  @Arielle Popstar

Now I humbly submit to you from an academic & clinical entity that has existed since 1867 a consortium of accumulated knowledge examining claims of a correlation between nicotine & COVID.  It examines case studies but also how the tobacco industry directly benefitted from those claims of nicotine consumption ( pollution of bodies) allegedly warding off or weakening the severity of an infection. 
 

This was last updated in late February of 2021. 
 

Was this politically correct enough for you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41533-021-00223-1

 

Edited by Pixie Kobichenko
Edited for additional link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That is a pretty old article. It just isn't politically correct to mention smoking may have a benefit but certainly it should be pointed out that ex smokers and non smokers are at a higher risk.

"A so-called “living review” of the evidence, originally published as a pre-print this March but subsequently updated, similarly found that “Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, greater disease severity and mortality from COVID-19.”

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/08/does-smoking-prevent-covid-19-we-dont-know-some-journalists-dont-want-find-out-15588

And from a study done by the Mayo clinic:

"Patients who used only e-cigarettes were no more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis than those who don't smoke or vape. Those who smoked only cigarettes, on the other hand, were 57 percent less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. The results may come as a surprise to many as it was widely thought at the beginning of the pandemic that both smoking and vaping would cause more COVID-19 infections with worse symptoms."

https://reason.com/2021/06/11/study-finds-vapers-not-more-likely-to-get-covid-19/

 

As a smoker of over 40 years and contracting Covid before anyone even knew it wasn't the flu, I can tell you that is bullcrap.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

I really don't see the sense in arguing with strangers on the internet about this.  I don't see anybody changing their minds.

True.  When there's a battle like this between entrenched positions, there are only two good reasons to keep fighting:

1. There's a small chance that someone who hasn't already decided might be persuaded to agree with your side. [So, your side might actually "win" something, by gaining a convert.]

2. By continuing to argue, you don't appear to have admitted defeat.  [So, you don't have to suffer loss of face. You get to keep on feeling morally superior.]

As long as neither side gives up, both sides can claim that the other side has all the idiots.  That, of course, has one major downside, as Mark Twain is reputed to have said: "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

If you look at it rationally, you'd have to admit that there's little to be gained by going on and on and on.  However, as long as the people on both sides are anonymous, as they are in a forum like this, there's no real cost to keeping up the fight.  It's not like a shooting war, in which you might be killed if you stay on the battlefield.  Flame wars on the Internet are "safe".  Even fun, in a twisted way.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

Politically correct?  Really?  🙄  people are DYING & you have the audacity to bring political correctness into it?  (Aside from how I don’t understand how it is not politically correct)  

& if you’d like I can definitely find you something more recent.

People. Are. Dying.  

 

Eh? I was meaning political correctness in mentioning that tobacco may have a beneficial effect. That would be like therapeutic and I have been roundly lambasted for months when I had the audacity to bring up Vitamin D, Ivermectin or that one Trump promoted as it has obviously been politically incorrect to bring up anything that may take away from vaccines being the only alternative to preventing Covid.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Wonder if the studies authors would be surprised at how quickly the Covid virus is mutating.

I doubt it, both authors specialize in infection and mutation. Even the lay public, with the possible exception of you, knows how quickly viruses mutate. We get several new strains of the flu every season.

Here's Andrew Read's (one of the authors) CV...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_F._Read

David Kennedy (one of the authors) makes an argument you might like...
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VkV9_zoAAAAJ&citation_for_view=VkV9_zoAAAAJ:9yKSN-GCB0IC

I look forward to your misunderstanding of that.

Meanwhile, I wonder if you would be surprised at how quickly bacteria mutate...
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360/

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

As a smoker of over 40 years and contracting Covid before anyone even knew it wasn't the flu, I can tell you that is bullcrap.

Mm maybe. I remember you mentioning you didn't go to hospital when you did get it. I am going to assume you continued to smoke when you did which might have something to do with why you are still here to talk about it now rather than suffering the worsening effects at being a sudden ex-smoker had you been in the hospital.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Mm maybe. I remember you mentioning you didn't go to hospital when you did get it. I am going to assume you continued to smoke when you did which might have something to do with why you are still here to talk about it now rather than suffering the worsening effects at being a sudden ex-smoker had you been in the hospital.

Every bit of what you just posted is bullcrap. NO. NO. NO. NO.

I didn't go to the hospital BECAUSE I HAD NO WAY TO GET THERE. HE HAD IT BEFORE ME BY ONE DAY. It hit me less than 24 hours after it put him in bed. He is an ex-smoker and vaper. We're also in our 60s.

I'm still alive because my immune system was already in an uproar fighting a different virus. And I am just now starting to feel almost normal again.

If you're smart, you'll get the jab. If not, what ever happens to the people you care about is on you. No one else.

 

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

Is there anyone stupid enough to conclude from such data that the vaccine itself somehow caused those infections?

Qie! What's wrong with you? If you replace "stupid" with "ignorant" (which I think is what you actually meant) the answer is an enthusiastic YES!!!

At my last physical, the lab tech who drew my blood ranted about the clinic requiring staff to be vaccinated. I asked what prompted her concern.

"I don't want to get Covid from the vaccine."

I explained that none of the vaccines contained any viral material, so that was impossible. She brushed off my explanation. I reported my encounter to the clinic. Some months later, I heard though the grapevine that she'd been terminated. When the vaccines finally became available, staff who refused vaccination absent medical reason were terminated. So, I'm pretty sure her conviction got her convicted.

This isn't stupidity. This is perfectly intelligent people who, through ignorance born of many causes, make choices that seem counter intuitive to ours. You and I are someone else's "stupid".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently been reading Rules Of Contagion, by Adam Kurcharski, which explains extremely simply, in language a non-mathematician like me can understand, how and why viruses spread and mutate as they do.   It's a matter of simple mathematics, and it's how anything spreads virally, whether it's Covid-19 or Twitter likes and forwards.

I strongly recommend it.   Mathematics is what it is.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps smokers, knowing their lungs have already suffered damage, protected themselves from the start?   That makes entirely more sense than smoking prevents infection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Qie! What's wrong with you? If you replace "stupid" with "ignorant" (which I think is what you actually meant) the answer is an enthusiastic YES!!!

At my last physical, the lab tech who drew my blood ranted about the clinic requiring staff to be vaccinated. I asked what prompted her concern.

"I don't want to get Covid from the vaccine."

I explained that none of the vaccines contained any viral material, so that was impossible. She brushed off my explanation. I reported my encounter to the clinic. Some months later, I heard though the grapevine that she'd been terminated. When the vaccines finally became available, staff who refused vaccination absent medical reason were terminated. So, I'm pretty sure her conviction got her convicted.

This isn't stupidity. This is perfectly intelligent people who, through ignorance born of many causes, make choices that seem counter intuitive to ours. You and I are someone else's "stupid".

And of course technically you are correct that the vaccine does not contain the virus, however it does have the code to make the host replicate the spike protein, which has its own pathogens aside from the virus itself. I do remember linking you to that study proving that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Or perhaps smokers, knowing their lungs have already suffered damage, protected themselves from the start?   That makes entirely more sense than smoking prevents infection.

It certainly cures and preserves both salmon and herring  (i.e. kippers) most agreeably.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This isn't stupidity.

Oh, stupidity would be a euphemism for language offensive enough to describe my utter dismissal of all they say. I am tired of suffering these fools. Somebody else can try to educate them if they really have the patience, but at this point I'll stick to simple ridicule.

Ridicule, that is, laced with some speculation on how they acquired the ridiculous views. "Ignorant" suggests they're simply uninformed and a little tutelage can cure what ails them. I really doubt that is often the case. They've been actively misinformed, at least, but I think there's a more serious pathology at work here. I suspect they're literally addicted to a mode of thinking that's not only vulnerable to misinformation but actively seeks it out, recombining and elaborating it into theories that pose a direct and real threat to the future of the species.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

And of course technically you are correct that the vaccine does not contain the virus, however it does have the code to make the host replicate the spike protein, which has its own pathogens aside from the virus itself. I do remember linking you to that study proving that.

You are misusing the term "pathogen". Vaccines contain a finite amount of mRNA, which elicits the production of a finite amount of spike protein, hopefully sufficient to instruct the immune system. People might shed bits of that finite material, but it's still finite. If I eat asparagus, then pee in a public bathroom, the person in the next stall might whiff, but will not catch asparagus-itus.

Pathogens replicate, either on their own (bacteria, protozoa, fungi) or with help from our cellular factories (viruses and prions). That distinction makes all the difference in the world.

If you wish to continue to push your claim, you must present evidence that Covid-19 vaccines produce something that... reproduces.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I've recently been reading Rules Of Contagion, by Adam Kurcharski, which explains extremely simply, in language a non-mathematician like me can understand, how and why viruses spread and mutate as they do.   It's a matter of simple mathematics, and it's how anything spreads virally, whether it's Covid-19 or Twitter likes and forwards.

I strongly recommend it.   Mathematics is what it is.

I just finished the book, Innula, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Though it didn't contain any earth-shattering revelations, it did introduce me to some interesting nuance, primarily in the spread of ideas. That, and watching people massively miscalculate probabilities, both with respect to risk/benefit of vaccination and of the "paranormal", has provoked me to add "Fluke" to my reading list.

Covid-19 is a superb example of cross-connected contagions, one biological and multiple ideological. I expect "Fluke", like "Thinking Fast and Slow" will shed light on the vulnerabilities exploited by infectious ideas.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Public Health England has upgraded its risk assessment of the Delta variant after national testing data revealed it is more likely to cause reinfections than the Alpha variant, which was first identified in Kent.

The health agency’s analysis found the risk of reinfection with Delta may be 46% greater than with the Alpha variant, with the highest risk seen six months after a first infection – when second cases caused by Delta were 2.37 times more common than with Alpha.

 

The finding is bolstered by new data from Public Health England’s (PHE) Siren study, which monitors more than 40,000 NHS staff for Covid infections. The latest figures show that positive tests rose steadily from May to July when 1.1% had the virus. Nearly a third of the healthcare workers had Covid before enrolling on the study and more than 95% have been vaccinated.

It is unclear why Delta may be causing more reinfections, but one possibility is that immunity from infections early on in the pandemic may be waning a little and so reducing the body’s defences against the variant which became dominant in the UK this year. PHE said that further work is now being undertaken to examine the risk of reinfection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/phe-upgrade-delta-variants-risk-level-due-to-reinfection-risk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I just finished the book, Innula, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Though it didn't contain any earth-shattering revelations, it did introduce me to some interesting nuance, primarily in the spread of ideas. That, and watching people massively miscalculate probabilities, both with respect to risk/benefit of vaccination and of the "paranormal", has provoked me to add "Fluke" to my reading list.

Covid-19 is a superb example of cross-connected contagions, one biological and multiple ideological. I expect "Fluke", like "Thinking Fast and Slow" will shed light on the vulnerabilities exploited by infectious ideas.

Thank you so much! Fluke looks fascinating, and I'll be reading it very soon.

If one of us hasn't already mentioned it, Shape, by Jordan Ellenberg is wonderful -- he reminds us that geometric progression is, well, geometry, and explains beautifully clearly how Euclidian geometry explains so much.  

Now I start to realise what those maths teachers were so  excited about... why didn't they tell me at the time?  I'd have paid a bit more attention.    

After a lifetime primarily interested in language and the arts, I now find myself starting to see the attractions of maths and sciences.   I always knew there was something I was missing , because I couldn't understand why apparently sane friends at college got so excited about equations, but now I begin to get it.

Maths isn't just a tool.   It's a way of describing how the world has to work -- there are rules that reality lays down, and these are what they are, and this is what must inevitably follow.   Fascinating.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That is a pretty old article. It just isn't politically correct to mention smoking may have a benefit but certainly it should be pointed out that ex smokers and non smokers are at a higher risk.

"A so-called “living review” of the evidence, originally published as a pre-print this March but subsequently updated, similarly found that “Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, greater disease severity and mortality from COVID-19.”

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/06/08/does-smoking-prevent-covid-19-we-dont-know-some-journalists-dont-want-find-out-15588

And from a study done by the Mayo clinic:

"Patients who used only e-cigarettes were no more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis than those who don't smoke or vape. Those who smoked only cigarettes, on the other hand, were 57 percent less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. The results may come as a surprise to many as it was widely thought at the beginning of the pandemic that both smoking and vaping would cause more COVID-19 infections with worse symptoms."

https://reason.com/2021/06/11/study-finds-vapers-not-more-likely-to-get-covid-19/

That "study" was done on people who went to the Mayo Clinic for treatment of a myriad of issues, not Covid patients. Of the people sampled they could simply have found smokers that had a stronger immune system naturally. They didnt infect them with Covid, i would like to know how they came to their conclusion as it is NO WHERE in that study. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 88 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...