I got 2 Pfizer shots, some time passed, I got sick with pneumonia but tested negative for Covid-19. Some time passed and was sick again. This time we all tested positive for Covid-19 and I had pneumonia again. Should I get the boosters?
Hello Sam!
That's the full post.
With
Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc.
Here's the link to it ... https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?page=194#comment-68916755
That's what I've been doing - pointing out that tactics are being repeated.
And I've been doing that my way - rather than being bullied into doing it somebody else's way.
Regarding reportability of all of this to staff - I imagine its not -
as people can block who they wish.
Interfering with Covid misinformation and disinformation -
its been a good forum.
But talking back to those personalizing that interference - not allowed?
Not good.
"Your way" includes a constant flow of comments that denigrate another poster when that poster is not responding in kind. You might think that there's some kind of balance because you are counting every claim of misunderstanding is just a clever and underhanded attack, but there isn't a balance. If you choose to persist in this belief, I guess you'll have to get more clever about disguising "attacks" in the manner that seems to you to be working so well against you 
.
Decouple the arguments and tactics from the poster.
I don't want to interfere between the OP and a poster but for my part (I'm also allowed to defend myself), I just want to add that there is still no proof of me promoting any kind of disinformation or intentional promotion of misinformation.
I don't want to interfere between the OP and a poster but for my part (I'm also allowed to defend myself), I just want to add that there is still no proof of me promoting any kind of disinformation or intentional promotion of misinformation.
Well, to be fair, it takes a certain mercenary greed to *intentionally* promote something you know is misinformation during a pandemic ...Alex Jones types, etc.
On google, it says Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. I guess I see where you're coming from, I would assume Raoult is not included?
But anyway as for unintentional misinformation if somebody could point it out that would be great too.
'pneumonia' is very often a major symptom of Covid. That doesn't sound right. Pneumonia was around for yrs before Covid. You can get a vaccine for pneumonia.
'pneumonia' is very often a major symptom of Covid. That doesn't sound right. Pneumonia was around for yrs before Covid. You can get a vaccine for pneumonia.
I believe Covid has been mistaken for Pneumonia. We all know that Covid tests are not 100% accurate
That's the full post.
With
Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc.
Here's the link to it ... https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?page=194#comment-68916755
That's what I've been doing - pointing out that tactics are being repeated.
And I've been doing that my way - rather than being bullied into doing it somebody else's way.
Regarding reportability of all of this to staff - I imagine its not -
as people can block who they wish.
Interfering with Covid misinformation and disinformation -
its been a good forum.
But talking back to those personalizing that interference - not allowed?
Not good.
"Your way" includes a constant flow of comments that denigrate another poster when that poster is not responding in kind. You might think that there's some kind of balance because you are counting every claim of misunderstanding is just a clever and underhanded attack, but there isn't a balance. If you choose to persist in this belief, I guess you'll have to get more clever about disguising "attacks" in the manner that seems to you to be working so well against you .
Decouple the arguments and tactics from the poster.
@btickler
1) The 'other poster' is initiating the situations - rather than not 'responding in kind'
2) In another passage - you suggested somebody was morally deficient.
If I was like you - I could say you were 'hounding' him.
Suggestion - you were doing the right thing - because it was properly motivated. However a 'casual observer' dropping in might shallowly react to your posts with neither bothering to read the context nor think.
And - the subject of Covid isn't a 'casual' one.
3) A person claimed one was 'safe' by using the measures other than vaccination. That is Covid misinformation.
And its the kind of rumor-mongering that could cost somebody reading here their life ...
Proof: people dying of Covid have admitted they were victims of misinformation. They have begged for vaccination after its too late.
This is Well Known.
Easy to find on the Internet.
The whole idea of A or B 100% 'protection' or 'non-protection' is dangerous misinformation.
One would be 'safe' if one was thoroughly quarantined.
Things like just the mask and handwashing and social distancing do not confer 'safety'.
They help - they reduce the transmissions and deaths -
but numerically. On a scalar basis. Not a panacea A or B basis.
At the other extreme of misinformation -
"Oh I got vaccinated so I don't need to do the other things and you don't either"
That is Dangerous Misinformation too.
Its cost a lot of lives - Dichotomizing Covid at either end of foolish A or B extremes.
Mistake:"if you stop at red lights - you don't need to fasten seat belt."
"you fasten seat belt - so you don't need to do defensive driving"
Those kinds of misinformation and disinformation - in the Covid context - have cost a lot of lives.
"3) A person claimed one was 'safe' by using the measures other than vaccination. That is Covid misinformation."
If COVID-19 is spreading in your community, stay safe by taking some simple precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, keeping rooms well ventilated, avoiding crowds, cleaning your hands, and coughing into a bent elbow or tissue. Check local advice where you live and work. Do it all! (no vaccination included).
Logically, the virus cannot be transmitted if 6 feet are respected, face masks interfere between the organs that are vulnerable of covid transmission, and the room is ventilated (if indoor) and hands are clean. How can not being vaccinated make a difference if all of these are respected
Because it does.
Unless you're quarantined - you can potentially get or pass the disease.
Suggesting it won't happen - is Dangerous Misinformation.
'pneumonia' is very often a major symptom of Covid. That doesn't sound right. Pneumonia was around for yrs before Covid. You can get a vaccine for pneumonia.
Regardless of how it sounds - its what happens a lot of the time.
You get Covid. You then get 'pneumonia'. You die.
Regardless of how it 'sounds' a little thinking can clear that up for you right away.
Somebody's shot with a gun - but it doesn't kill him right away.
But he bleeds. To death.
Are you going to say "No the bullet didn't kill him. He died of blood loss." ?
Yes - pneumonia was around before Covid - but the truth of one thing doesn't necessarily negate the truth of another.
Blood loss doesn't need a bullet to kill you.
Are you going to try and argue that the pneumonia had nothing to do with the Covid ?
After getting Covid - there are other things that can arise from that - and then that can kill the host.
Illogic: 'We got vaccinated. We got Covid or a variant of it. We didn't die but we also got pneumonia too. Survived and now have neither.'
1) Dangerous possible Misinterpretation 1):
The vaccine 'didn't do' anything.
2) Dangerous possible Misinterpretation 2):
'Pneumonia was 'around' and existed in history before Covid - so therefore pneumonia 'couldn't' arise from Covid because that doesn't 'sound right'.
Such misinterpretation would be like saying blood loss couldn't arise from a bullet.
If one makes many illogical statements suggesting A=B so C must be false
then even without intending that -
that triggers 'rumor psychology'.
Its related to 'pure empiricism'.
Overreacting to and misinterpreting data and graphs with little or no reasoning nor overview resulting in gross illogic and misinformation - rumoring.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/modes-transmission-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-ipc-precaution-recommendations?gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v6SBhCsARIsACyrRAm44We1LzKoKWn7EFMgOc7Y5CLGZV1h1DOTMWkWbtOCCdnRLrLpcYQaAmkCEALw_wcB
Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in in close contact (within 1 m) with someone who has respiratory symptoms (e.g. coughing or sneezing,) and is therefore at risk of having his/her mucosae (mouth and nose) or conjunctiva (eyes) exposed to potentially infective respiratory droplets (which are generally considered to be > 5-10 μm in diameter). Droplet transmission may also occur through fomites in the immediate environment around the infected person. Therefore, transmission of the COVID-19 virus can occur by direct contact with infected people and indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment or with objects used on the infected person (e.g. stethoscope or thermometer).
Airborne transmission is different from droplet transmission as it refers to the presence of microbes within droplet nuclei, which are generally considered to be particles < 5μm in diameter, and which result from the evaporation of larger droplets or exist within dust particles. They may remain in the air for long periods of time and be transmitted to others over distances greater than 1 m.
In the context of COVID-19, airborne transmission may be possible in specific circumstances and settings in which procedures that generate aerosols are performed (i.e. endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation).
"In other words - why would the spread of the viruses not be Very Much Worse without the various measures including Vaccination?"
Well:
Senegal:
Population: 17.5M
Full vaccination rate: 8.7%
28-day cases: 140
28-day deaths: 25
Cases per million = 140/17.5M * 10^6 = 8
Deaths per million = 25/17.5M * 10^6 = 1.5
Senegal health measures: https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2022/03/senegal-authorities-maintaining-limited-covid-19-related-restrictions-as-of-march-11-update-30
Comparatively,
Australia:
Population: 26M
Full vaccination rate: 83.3%
28-day cases: 1.5M
28-day deaths: 1,059
Cases per million: 57,692
Deaths per million: 40.7
Australia health measures: https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2022/04/australia-western-australia-ends-some-covid-19-restrictions-as-of-april-14-update-62
Sources:
Both are mentioned in the OP as reliable sources.
Apparently, I am meant to see that the vaccine is doing a great job in reducing the spread of the virus, and I do not intend to.
I am not disagreeing, but you're not going to contract the virus if you follow the guidelines, wear a mask, respect social distancing and wash your hands.
'you're not going to contract the virus'
@btickler
Do you agree with that 'not going to' there ?
I could be 'technical' and say there's no link with it -
But maybe there's 1000 Mercola and Raoult style links that would back up that claim.
Candidate for Covid misinformation there.
Not personal. Not 'hounding' by me.
To find it fast - not just by the opening poster but anybody reading here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/covid-19-discussion?quote_id=68177427&page=179#comment-68177427
Its post # 179 on page - post 3572.
It is typical to just go on about Raoult as if he's just one of those attention seekers who only care about spreading disinformation but in fact, he just shows official statistics -makes conclusions based on them and on the statistics in his hospital which by the way has saved one of the biggest number of people in France with regards to COVID care- that show that vaccination isn't as efficient as said and calls people to be reasonable. No conspiracy theories, no calls to stop vaccination, only evidence-backed and statistic-backed sayings. The controversy is around the use of alternate drugs when no official clinical trials have been made. But chloroquine was actually used for many other reasons and studies show some efficacity.
People who don't listen to what he actually says would find it easy to actually say that everything he says is disinformation.
As for the claim, it is backed by #3894 and #3898, and not by Raoult. Besides, actually bothering to read the whole conversation on page 179, the person that is being talked about would be vaccinated as well in this case. The debate was around vaccine passport systems/mandates and specifically the need of having all colleagues vaccinated.
In fact this followed, post by @Marie-AnneLiz:
"Yes you can if someone very close to you or your kids etc give it to you...most people got it right now in my province of 8.5 millions."
But the claim was about not catching COVID if guidelines are followed, the person is vaccinated and has an unvaccinated colleague in their department, which makes a huge difference compared to somebody 'really close'.
A whole bunch of posts have disappeared - with empty pages at the end.
This means that somebody in the forum has either deleted many posts - or that somebody in the forum or who was in the forum has been muted by chess.com.
Regarding 'you're not going to get Covid if ...'
Unless one is talking about quarantining - then statements like that are dangerous Misinformation at best.
Such Misinformation could cost someone their life or the life of a family member.
Covid Disinformation and Misinformation have already cost many lives.
Assertions that one will not get Covid in any situation other than quarantining - 'because one thinks so or because one believes people like Raoult and Mercola' or because one misinterprets empirical data are thoughtless - irresponsible - negligent - shallow and bereft of morality.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/modes-transmission-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-ipc-precaution-recommendations?gclid=Cj0KCQjw3v6SBhCsARIsACyrRAm44We1LzKoKWn7EFMgOc7Y5CLGZV1h1DOTMWkWbtOCCdnRLrLpcYQaAmkCEALw_wcB
Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in in close contact (within 1 m) with someone who has respiratory symptoms (e.g. coughing or sneezing,) and is therefore at risk of having his/her mucosae (mouth and nose) or conjunctiva (eyes) exposed to potentially infective respiratory droplets (which are generally considered to be > 5-10 μm in diameter). Droplet transmission may also occur through fomites in the immediate environment around the infected person. Therefore, transmission of the COVID-19 virus can occur by direct contact with infected people and indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment or with objects used on the infected person (e.g. stethoscope or thermometer).
Airborne transmission is different from droplet transmission as it refers to the presence of microbes within droplet nuclei, which are generally considered to be particles < 5μm in diameter, and which result from the evaporation of larger droplets or exist within dust particles. They may remain in the air for long periods of time and be transmitted to others over distances greater than 1 m.
In the context of COVID-19, airborne transmission may be possible in specific circumstances and settings in which procedures that generate aerosols are performed (i.e. endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation).
That article is woefully out of date. We now know that surface transmission is lower than initially though, and airborne transmission is higher. There's no guarantee of 6m being safe, nor has there ever been such a guarantee. We now know that airborne transmission in indoor areas with poor ventilation or recycled air is more likely. Masks protect others more than they protect the wearer...and since so many other people are not vaccinating and not wearing masks, vaccination is indicated.
https://www.cdc.gov/socialmedia/syndication/405380/404364.html
There are 45 pages of new and updated articles from the CDC at the above link, going back to January 2021. Using a March 2020 article is not going to be nearly as accurate.
@btickler
1) The 'other poster' is initiating the situations - rather than not 'responding in kind'
2) In another passage - you suggested somebody was morally deficient.
If I was like you - I could say you were 'hounding' him.
Suggestion - you were doing the right thing - because it was properly motivated. However a 'casual observer' dropping in might shallowly react to your posts with neither bothering to read the context nor think.
And - the subject of Covid isn't a 'casual' one.
3) A person claimed one was 'safe' by using the measures other than vaccination. That is Covid misinformation.
And its the kind of rumor-mongering that could cost somebody reading here their life ...
Proof: people dying of Covid have admitted they were victims of misinformation. They have begged for vaccination after its too late.
This is Well Known.
Easy to find on the Internet.
The whole idea of A or B 100% 'protection' or 'non-protection' is dangerous misinformation.
One would be 'safe' if one was thoroughly quarantined.
Things like just the mask and handwashing and social distancing do not confer 'safety'.
They help - they reduce the transmissions and deaths -
but numerically. On a scalar basis. Not a panacea A or B basis.
At the other extreme of misinformation -
"Oh I got vaccinated so I don't need to do the other things and you don't either"
That is Dangerous Misinformation too.
Its cost a lot of lives - Dichotomizing Covid at either end of foolish A or B extremes.
Mistake:"if you stop at red lights - you don't need to fasten seat belt."
"you fasten seat belt - so you don't need to do defensive driving"
Those kinds of misinformation and disinformation - in the Covid context - have cost a lot of lives.
(1) I disagree. Perhaps we have a different definition of "situations". Posting some source of information and trying to discuss its validity is not a "situation"...it's what this thread is for. Repeatedly posting misinformation once it is shown to be incorrect or unsupported is a problem.
(2) One post does not constitute hounding, hounding would be what you are continuing to engage in right now by calling on me to scrutinize Chamo even more than I am already doing for all posters. Argue the points.
(3) Yes, it is misinformation. So, dispute it. It's only repeated and willful posting of misinformation that I block for. In each case Chamo has tried to document everything he is bringing up. When some sources were debunked, he stopped using them. As long as such progress exists, I don't have a problem.
I got 2 Pfizer shots, some time passed, I got sick with pneumonia but tested negative for Covid-19. Some time passed and was sick again. This time we all tested positive for Covid-19 and I had pneumonia again. Should I get the boosters?
Hi Sam !
'pneumonia' is very often a major symptom of Covid.
A 'symptomatic disorder'.
Coroners in some places sometimes write down 'pneumonia' as cause of death - where the pneumonia was Covid.
Sam - its noteworthy that none of you died from Covid.
You all survived. You're all relatively well now right ?
Now testing negative again?
Any hospitalizations during the recent sicknesses?
I don't recall - but have the previous vaccinations ever made you sick?
Should you get the boosters ?
I'm not going to practice medicine without a license ...
A lot of people have been questioning the boosters because of new forms of Covid coming out.
I'll just add this - many who have got Covid after being vaccinated have probably thought about what it might have meant - especially for the last year - if they had got the Covid without being vaccinated.
The stats have been Intense about the death rate among the unvaccinated.
Partially vaccinated ? That's another set of stats.
Sam - another thing.
As a very educated man - you know about 'empirical science' as opposed to other aspects of science.
There's a thing that happens when people go strictly by empirical science only - Is it called 'empiricism' ? Not quite.
But an overemphasis or overreaction of empiricism at the expense of rationale and logic and other aspects of science and reasoning ...
Care to comment about 'Empiricism only' ?