Seriously thoughtful The NEW Covid Vaccination Poll

[haertig]

Maybe a few people here will read some of the words I actually wrote before jumping into the pile-on?

Originally Posted by haertig

That's not saying covid did not kill people.

Originally Posted by haertig

Covid is a big contributor to death. I have never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by haertig

It is vitally important to take covid out of the equation since it is such a big contributor.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

Allegedly, if you had an active COVID infection and you died of something definitely not COVID, like, say, an airplane losing an engine that hits and crushes you, statistically that'd be a COVID death.

Would it? Sounds implausible.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by meeera

A lot of the so-called "co-morbidities" were not pre-existing conditions; they were notations on the death certificate causal chain like pneumonia (due to COVID), acute respiratory distress syndrome (due to COVID), and respiratory failure (due to COVID).

Saying that that's someone who died with COVID not from COVID is like saying that a stab victim died with a stab wound not from a stab wound - because their proximate cause of death was blood loss.

Love the clarity.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

A lot of the so-called "co-morbidities" were not pre-existing conditions; they were notations on the death certificate causal chain like pneumonia (due to COVID), acute respiratory distress syndrome (due to COVID), and respiratory failure (due to COVID).

What you list above are not co-morbidities, and you know that. How about hypertension, obesity, advanced age, diabetes, CHF, COPD? For every fake co-morbidity that you listed there is a real one. Are you suggesting that co-morbidities play no role in covid deaths? They are not the primary cause of death, but I never said that, as you well know. They do play a part however. That is why they are called co-morbidities.

Despite all that, and how you feel about co-morbidities, I never said that co-morbidities give covid a free pass:

Originally Posted by haertig

It is vitally important to take covid out of the equation since it is such a big contributor.

But you knew what I said...

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

What you list above are not co-morbidities, and you know that.

Which is why I said "so-called 'co-morbidities'".

How about hypertension, obesity, advanced age, diabetes, CHF, COPD? For every fake co-morbidity that you listed there is a real one. Are you suggesting that co-morbidities play no role in covid deaths?

"Play no role"? No. Do they mean that someone whose COVID was more difficult to fight because of the above "died with COVID not from COVID"? Absolutely not. That's not how cause of death works.


You started this subthread with the following:

the discussion we've all heard about, "died WITH covid vs. died OF covid".

And that "discussion we've all heard about" is the 94% hoaxer propaganda. If you were referring to some other discussion, by all means be very clear about what you're referring to - with evidence - instead of dancing about.

You also did some hand-waving about supposed misattributions of influenza deaths to COVID, above. Show me the data. I've been following the whole influenza situation pretty closely, and I've seen nothing to suggest this is a significant issue.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

Which is why I said "so-called 'co-morbidities'".

Who called them co-morbidities? I can't find anywhere in this thread where they were spoken of, except by you.

Originally Posted by meeera

You also did some hand-waving about supposed misattributions of influenza deaths to COVID, above.

Here's what I said:

Probably due in part to masks, in part to incorrectly attributing some deaths to covid when they were actually flu.

Do you understand what the word "probably" means? I was introducing a possibility, I was introducing a debatable concept, I was proposing a possible answer to the question/discussion on why flu cases dropped so dramatically.

My personal understanding of "probably" is "unproven, debatable, but more likely than not". And that is exactly my opinion on this. I am allowed to have an opinion aren't I? Debate it (which is exactly what "probably" does - it invites debate). But don't belittle it. In case you don't understand what you said to belittle, and choose to "dance around" and do some "hand-waving" to ignore that - oops! I gave it away. Those were the exact words I was going to point out as being belittling.

I'm sure your reading skills are not truly this bad. We're probably (there's that word again!) talking 2nd grade reading comprehension here. I am beginning to wonder what the real motivation behind your responses is. I am simply offering my opinions to a discussion, just like you are. I did not state this as a fact, I stated my opinion, clearly prefaced with "probably" to invite discussion ("discussion", not "dismissal" - that's a different word).

But it appears that you don't what to hear anybody else's opinions - you want to hear your opinions coming out of their mouths.

[CWatkinsNash]

Just got home from getting my first shot at Kroger Pharmacy! The only effects I'm feeling are those that come from being out in the world for the first time since November.

I waited out my 15 minutes then swung by aisle 3 for a bottle of Riesling for next week's virtual pub night. I figure if I have to be in an actual store, I may as well make use of it.

[ownedbycats]

Alas, the CMA wants to re-allocate my province's share of the vaccines to Ontario. Even though they already have enough unused doses to vaccinate every adult in our province. Meanwhile, the number of cases in N.S. has been rising and two staff members at LTCs have diagnosed positive. I am afraid.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Alas, the CMA wants to re-allocate my province's share of the vaccines to Ontario. Even though they already have enough unused doses to vaccinate every adult in our province. Meanwhile, the number of cases in N.S. has been rising and two staff members at LTCs have diagnosed positive. I am afraid.

I had read that Canada was having trouble in getting the vaccines out. After seeing your post here, which is kind of scary I will agree, I did some research into what happened. Because a few months ago, I thought Canada was being criticized for ordering way more vaccine than they could ever use.

Apparently the decision was made to spread out those orders over a bunch of manufacturers of different vaccines. That sounds perfectly reasonable as a strategy - don't get tied into one supplier who may not be able to deliver. But what actually happened is that Canada ended up with a bunch of orders for vaccines like Astra-Zeneca, Johnson&Johnson, etc. and those vaccines have not been approved for use in Canada. So they have orders for stuff they can't use (currently).

On top of that, Canada did not trust the US to deliver vaccines, thinking Trump would implement an export ban and leave Canada hanging. So they went with European distributors. Those European distributors are having production/distribution issues of their own, and did not make Canada their priority. And some of the Europeans are making mention of possible export bans now (I heard that somewhere, but can't remember where, so consider it hearsay).

So a few months ago Canada was being criticized for ordering tons more vaccine then they could ever use, and now they can't get that delivered, or couldn't use it even if it were. They are asking others for help now since the European distribution chain is marginal.

That's quite the mess. The ways out of it that I can see, are (1) hopefully the US or Russia or China or India (the non-European suppliers that I know of) can give Canada some supply to fill in, and (2) Canada might want to put more priority on testing and approving other vaccines, especially the ones that they have outstanding (and currently unusable) orders for.

Moving shipments of scarce resources from one place to another makes sense only if those supplies would do massively more good in the alternate place. But that does not sound like what is being described by ownedbycats. It's an entire province to province move. That sounds very hard to justify - snubbing an entire province.

I'd be pissed too.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by haertig

Moving shipments of scarce resources from one place to another makes sense only if those supplies would do massively more good in the alternate place. But that does not sound like what is being described by ownedbycats. It's an entire province to province move. That sounds very hard to justify - snubbing an entire province.

I'd be pissed too.

Dr. Strang compared it to installing fire sprinklers on a building that's already aflame.

[PeterT]

I'm not sure Canada got to pick where the vaccines would be supplied from.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[haertig]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I'm not sure Canada got to pick where the vaccines would be supplied from.

Below is the website that I was paraphrasing from:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306

Why is Canada lagging behind?

Canada was criticised at the end of last year for buying up multiple times the supply it needs to cover its population.

It has signed deals with seven vaccine suppliers - Moderna and Pfizer, as well as ones with pending authorisation like AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson - for a total of over 400 million doses.

But it seems it wasn't positioned for priority delivery of the two authorised jabs.

That's partly because the country decided to invest in vaccines from European factories, afraid that the US, under former president Donald Trump, would issue export bans.

In December, Mr Trump did issue an executive order to give Americans "first priority" for vaccines produced in the US, though it was considered a mostly symbolic move. President Joe Biden has not suggested a change of course.

European factories are struggling with supply and recently it has been the EU that has been threatening those bans.

Somewhere else I had read that the Europeans were considering export bans. But I can't find where I was reading that. And as I think about it more, it may actually have been India that was considering export bans, not Europe. I can't remember now, and I'm starting to doubt my memory of Europe as the potential banner since the idea it might be India has crept in.

[BetterRed]

At the start of the pandemic I noticed Canada's per capita case and death numbers were tracking alongside Australia and New Zealand's numbers. My interest in the history of British Empire informed me that they are the three remaining "Commonwealth Realms" - formerly known as "Dominions" (IIRC Canada still uses the word to describe itself). I wondered if that could that be a factor - nah, that's ancient history, says I.

Australia, and I assume New Zealand, based a lot of their early decisions on the information they were getting from the WHO West Pacific office in Manila. I know this because the Chief Medical Officer and his deputy both remarked, more than once: "We base our decisions on the information we get from the WHO office in Manila, and directly from China, not the information coming out of the WHO office in Geneva."

So I wondered if Austraiia and New Zealand shared what they knew with Canada via the Five Eyes Alliance. Assuming they did, it was clear the other two eyes, UK and US, weren't listening Then, knowing Canada had close relations with Taiwan, I wondered if they were sharing their intelligence with Canada - Taiwan sent Canada some shipments of free PPE.

Then Canada's numbers began to drift from the other two "Commonwealth Realms" into the same league as the UK, US, France etc. I still don't understand why. Canada's national leader is from the same side as New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern, and its federal structure is very similar to that of Australia - it could have cherry picked from both.

Interestingly, Australia's vaccination program is struggling with supply and some say "a loss of confidence", but IMO it's also a "lack of convenience". The federal (Conservative) government is very proscriptive on where different cohorts can get vaccinated, and what vaccine they will get. My cohort is told to go to their GPs (personal doctors). But GPs with small practices are barred from administering the vaccines, some GPs aren't interested in investing in more hardware or employing nurses to baby sit people, and some people don't have a GP. Their response:

Here's a list of GPs who might give you the jab, but most of them have 'current patients only' signs on their doors. Or they're 2 hours away.

Or, contact your local Member of Parliament and he/she will help you find an accredited GP. My local MP is the Leader of the Opposition, the only time I did ask him for help (for a single-mum with two kids who lost her job last March and isn't eligible for welfare) I was told: "Try contacting to the Treasurer, he can fix that with the stroke of his pen." I've been voting for him for the last 25 years.

BR

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

Who called them co-morbidities? I can't find anywhere in this thread where they were spoken of, except by you.

You snipped this part of what I said. "And that "discussion we've all heard about" is the 94% hoaxer propaganda. If you were referring to some other discussion, by all means be very clear about what you're referring to - with evidence - instead of dancing about."

The 94% hoaxers, the ones pushing the "died with COVID not from COVID" conversation, call them "co-morbidities".

Still waiting for your response to that. You haven't yet told me whether that this is or isn't the conversation we're having.

[to others on this thread who are sick of this: if the reply is non-responsive, I'll drop it.]

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Then Canada's numbers began to drift from the other two "Commonwealth Realms" into the same league as the UK, US, France etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56779428