dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I don't consider that a high mortality rate. But I will be honest that as a doc I don't trust any of the data on Covid..

---

1 to 3% from an epidemiological standpoint is extremely high.

---

Wrong.

---

You know that the tranmission rate is a part of this. Covid overwhelmed the healthcare system not just due to symptoms but due to mortality and accompanying damage to organ systems in those who survived. The mortality rate of Spanish Flu was 2-5%. By all means, read what happened to Philadelphia and tell me if that was a low or moderate problem.

---

Never said anything that you posted. You posted that Covid had a high mortality rate. By all medical definitions, it did not.

---

You're being remarkably pedantic. In isolation it did not. In combination with its R0 it was extremely lethal.

Hobbes01 said:

---

I cannot believe that there are still people out there goaltending for Fauci and company. I was amongst a small group at work willing to be fired vs getting the unproven, rushed "vaccine". And we were verbally crucified for wanting to wait for more data to be published.

Have to admit, the vindication has been sweet as more and more people recognize covid for the scam it truly was. Yet then there are still others still willing to double down on the absurdity of the decisions made back then. SMH....

---

What vindication? The vaccine worked and saved lives.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40872946/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529636/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34367770/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37831663/

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I don't consider that a high mortality rate. But I will be honest that as a doc I don't trust any of the data on Covid..

---

1 to 3% from an epidemiological standpoint is extremely high.

---

Wrong.

---

You know that the tranmission rate is a part of this. Covid overwhelmed the healthcare system not just due to symptoms but due to mortality and accompanying damage to organ systems in those who survived. The mortality rate of Spanish Flu was 2-5%. By all means, read what happened to Philadelphia and tell me if that was a low or moderate problem.

---

Never said anything that you posted. You posted that Covid had a high mortality rate. By all medical definitions, it did not.

---

You're being remarkably pedantic. In isolation it did not. In combination with its R0 it was extremely lethal.

---

No I just called you out for a false statement and you did not like it. Simple as that. You never answered why schools were closed down.

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I don't consider that a high mortality rate. But I will be honest that as a doc I don't trust any of the data on Covid..

---

1 to 3% from an epidemiological standpoint is extremely high.

---

Wrong.

---

You know that the tranmission rate is a part of this. Covid overwhelmed the healthcare system not just due to symptoms but due to mortality and accompanying damage to organ systems in those who survived. The mortality rate of Spanish Flu was 2-5%. By all means, read what happened to Philadelphia and tell me if that was a low or moderate problem.

---

Never said anything that you posted. You posted that Covid had a high mortality rate. By all medical definitions, it did not.

---

You're being remarkably pedantic. In isolation it did not. In combination with its R0 it was extremely lethal.

---

No I just called you out for a false statement and you did not like it. Simple as that. You never answered why schools were closed down.

---

I did answer that question directly.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I don't consider that a high mortality rate. But I will be honest that as a doc I don't trust any of the data on Covid..

---

1 to 3% from an epidemiological standpoint is extremely high.

---

Wrong.

---

You know that the tranmission rate is a part of this. Covid overwhelmed the healthcare system not just due to symptoms but due to mortality and accompanying damage to organ systems in those who survived. The mortality rate of Spanish Flu was 2-5%. By all means, read what happened to Philadelphia and tell me if that was a low or moderate problem.

---

Never said anything that you posted. You posted that Covid had a high mortality rate. By all medical definitions, it did not.

---

You're being remarkably pedantic. In isolation it did not. In combination with its R0 it was extremely lethal.

---

No I just called you out for a false statement and you did not like it. Simple as that. You never answered why schools were closed down.

---

I did answer that question directly.

---

Sorry I must have missed it. Will re read.

Edited to say I found your answer. I disagree with your reasoning but appreciate your answer.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

We are all a product of our environment.

---

fify

I'm so saddened by the revisionist history as it relates to Covid. It was such a scary time that was very difficult for everyone. So many seem to forget that we had to use refrigerated trailers because the bodies were pilling up so fast. Our healthcare workers were completely overwhelmed.

If we have another, I fear it's going to be really really bad.

dermdoc said:

---

I, for one, am certainly not downplaying it. Covid was horrible. I disagree with some of the steps that were taken by government. Masks and social distancing are useless. Shutting down schools was not smart in my opinion.
There seems to be this belief that if you question any of the mandates you are somehow downplaying the severity of Covid. Hysterical over reaction is not good.

---

Can you site why you think masks and distancing were useless?

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I, for one, am certainly not downplaying it. Covid was horrible. I disagree with some of the steps that were taken by government. Masks and social distancing are useless. Shutting down schools was not smart in my opinion.
There seems to be this belief that if you question any of the mandates you are somehow downplaying the severity of Covid. Hysterical over reaction is not good.

---

Can you site why you think masks and distancing were useless?

---

I have posted studies on masks repeatedly and am too lazy to look them up. Very hard to prove/disprove whether social distancing is useful with an airborne respiratory spread virus. Asa doc for 45 years who has studied respiratory spread viruses, I think the damage of social distancing as far as loss of work, social interactions, etc. outweighs any possible potential benefit.
And I have never understood the closing of schools. Goes against everything I have been taught about respiratory spread viruses.

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I, for one, am certainly not downplaying it. Covid was horrible. I disagree with some of the steps that were taken by government. Masks and social distancing are useless. Shutting down schools was not smart in my opinion.
There seems to be this belief that if you question any of the mandates you are somehow downplaying the severity of Covid. Hysterical over reaction is not good.

---

Can you site why you think masks and distancing were useless?

---

I have posted studies on masks repeatedly and am too lazy to look them up. Very hard to prove/disprove whether social distancing is useful with an airborne respiratory spread virus. Asa doc for 45 years who has studied respiratory spread viruses, I think the damage of social distancing as far as loss of work, social interactions, etc. outweighs any possible potential benefit.
And I have never understood the closing of schools. Goes against everything I have been taught about respiratory spread viruses.

---

So I fully understand, you think masks are 100% useless or just that they're not worth the inconvenience?

I mean, of course, I can post tons of articles that masks were helpful. Do you wear a mask as a doctor?

As for distancing, I'm not sure I follow what was the "loss of work".... I mean being closer to someone that's sick gives you a higher chance of catching what they have than if you are further away from them, right?


To those that may not remember, my personal experience on this is that I'm in the Senior Living industry and it was incredibly scary for us as an industry. So, for me, your comments about schools rings a bit hollow for me because I know how many kids have interaction with their grandparents which was very problematic.

I don't disagree that it was very difficult on kids in ways that we will suffer for decades as a society.

But I also think there is a HUGE amount of hindsight being used by folks that didn't really have the responsibility of peoples lives in their hands.

So, you don't think that kids are excellent incubators?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

Here is just one of many mask articles. And bacteria are much larger than a virus particle. These studies have been done prior to Covid. All docs should know this.

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

Impossible? really?

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

Impossible? really?

---

Hmm.

So, maybe we need to unpack what it means to say "being exposed". I mean if you are saying trying to reduce the exposure rate to 0%, I can see your position but shouldn't we be talking about the practicality of reducing the exposure to the point that infection rate is minimized as much as possible?

N95 masks do nothing?

HEPA filters do nothing?

Outdoor contact versus indoor means nothing?

In fact, I've read some public health folks that think full isolation actually is the least efficient from a practical standpoint. These layered approaches are actually much more effective.

Macarthur said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

Impossible? really?

---

Hmm.

So, maybe we need to unpack what it means to say "being exposed". I mean if you are saying trying to reduce the exposure rate to 0%, I can see your position but shouldn't we be talking about the practicality of reducing the exposure to the point that infection rate is minimized as much as possible?

N95 masks do nothing?

HEPA filters do nothing?

Outdoor contact versus indoor means nothing?

In fact, I've read some public health folks that think full isolation actually is the least efficient from a practical standpoint. These layered approaches are actually much more effective.

---

And with all that protection they will still be exposed to the virus. As I posted, I bet every living person has evidence of Coronavirus exposure. Even if they did all you say. It is inevitable. And docs know this. Or should.
And with due respect, what difference does it make if you contact the virus inside or outside? You still have viral contact. I guess you could get in the nuance of viral load, but with a respiratory spread virus that is pretty useless.

Wasn't "asymptomatic" another Fauci lie?

No

Bird Poo said:

---

Wasn't "asymptomatic" another Fauci lie?

---

What context are you talking about?

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

That depends. Nothing we did impacted COVID exposure. It was just too contagious. I had a patient that lived alone, did not let anyone into her house, only met with other people outside on sunny days. She wore an N95 and gloves when meeting people outside, and she did the same when she went to the grocery store. She did not go anywhere else. This woman was world class, Olympic level great at social distancing and self isolation, and she caught COVID. It was just too contagious for any of those things to work.

However, we also noticed that the levels of influenza in the winter of 2020 dropped to almost zero. It was by far the best flu season on record. So it seems that all the masks, distancing, schools going remote, and remote work had an enormous impact on influenza transmission.

So it's more a matter of what respiratory virus we are referencing. Could we stop exposure to COVID? Not really. Could we stop exposure to influenza? Yes, with surprising effectiveness

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

That depends. Nothing we did impacted COVID exposure. It was just too contagious. I had a patient that lived alone, did not let anyone into her house, only met with other people outside on sunny days. She wore an N95 and gloves when meeting people outside, and she did the same when she went to the grocery store. She did not go anywhere else. This woman was world class, Olympic level great at social distancing and self isolation, and she caught COVID. It was just too contagious for any of those things to work.

However, we also noticed that the levels of influenza in the winter of 2020 dropped to almost zero. It was by far the best flu season on record. So it seems that all the masks, distancing, schools going remote, and remote work had an enormous impact on influenza transmission.

So it's more a matter of what respiratory virus we are referencing. Could we stop exposure to COVID? Not really. Could we stop exposure to influenza? Yes, with surprising effectiveness

---

And here's where I think the crux of the discussion lies. There was really no way to 100% shut down exposure, but those things you mentioned did have an effect. To varying degrees but they did have an effect.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

chap said:

---

I'll never understand why people continue to feed this troll.

---

I don't think Sapper is a troll. Sapper works in a profession that is 95% aligned with the Democrats, with a heavy overepresentation of the far left.

Sapper is a product of his environment. 15 years ago a completely different Sapper was posting on this board.

---

what colonial university does he work at?

Macarthur said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I would think "keep a safe distance from the elderly" is infinitely better then "shut down schools and the entire economy."

Most of the measures implemented by the government were placebos. Cloth masks don't work, and 6 feet of distancing is basically meaningless for an aerosol.

Yes, it was a tough time for the elderly, and those who work directly with the elderly. For basically everyone else the draconian measures were way my negatively impactful then the disease.

---

Again, I think a nuanced discussion about what would have been better is healthy. Part of the problme with our discourse today is that there is no room for nuance.


To your last point, I get it, but you simply can't say protect the elderly and everyone else can do what they want. It just doesn't work that way with something that could be carried asympotatic for as long as covid does. Remember we were learning so much early about how you could be infected and highly contagious and be asymptomatic.

---

How do you keep someone from being exposed to a respiratory spread virus without complete isolation? It is impossible.

---

That depends. Nothing we did impacted COVID exposure. It was just too contagious. I had a patient that lived alone, did not let anyone into her house, only met with other people outside on sunny days. She wore an N95 and gloves when meeting people outside, and she did the same when she went to the grocery store. She did not go anywhere else. This woman was world class, Olympic level great at social distancing and self isolation, and she caught COVID. It was just too contagious for any of those things to work.

However, we also noticed that the levels of influenza in the winter of 2020 dropped to almost zero. It was by far the best flu season on record. So it seems that all the masks, distancing, schools going remote, and remote work had an enormous impact on influenza transmission.

So it's more a matter of what respiratory virus we are referencing. Could we stop exposure to COVID? Not really. Could we stop exposure to influenza? Yes, with surprising effectiveness

---

And here's where I think the crux of the discussion lies. There was really no way to 100% shut down exposure, but those things you mentioned did have an effect. To varying degrees but they did have an effect.

---

Did you read where he posted that "Nothing we did impacted Covid exposure". It is really hard for people to accept there is nothing they can do to not be exposed to Covid. And I get that. But it is the hard truth. That is why it drove me crazy as a doc when docs like Fauci and Birx knew this but yet did not explain it.
And I vehemently disagree with your statement that anything we did "made a difference". It was impossible not to be exposed to Covid.
And I agree completely with ramblinag02's comment on the flu virus (and his entire post for that matter). But the flu virus has mutated to a less virulent and contagious form. Much like Covid is doing now right in front of our eyes. This is how respiratory spread viruses always evolve and mutate.
I wish ramblinag would have been in charge instead of Fauci.
Basically we were lied to and misled. Rule of thumb is don't trust anyone in politics. Even docs.
The fact that our "lead" doc had to take the Fifth 111 times and be cited for contempt is very disappointing.