Search the Community

On another thread, there was an attempt at a reasonable discussion, but it unfortunately fell apart when a member became upset and resorted to dishonourable tactics. Almighty knows, I tried with ideas. While I'm willing to give someone patience, using fake gender-based accusations during a simple disagreement is not productive, so I'll start this one. This thread will begin by answering 20 Questions put forward by a Covid-19 Skeptic. Other things to come, later on. I prefer to focus more on the ideas and research I've come across, rather than my direct personal struggles. Quickly about the personal too, as an intro 😄 - I should mention that my busy work and longstanding trust in my family doctor have made it unnecessary for me to devote significant time to studying Covid-19. During the peak of the pandemic, I found myself working twice as much as I do now because many people were staying home and receiving government aid. This thread is about my search to confirm that I made the correct decision in trusting my physician. Doctors are doctors, engineers are engineers, and programmers are programmers, however it's not just about the job title. It's about the trust that has been built over years in my community with my doctor, who went to medical school and has the necessary qualifications to provide sound medical advice. If some of this research is out of date, please respond and will engage. However, if you are going to talk about my personal flaws that I volunteered and other low level language, will not engage, you can post, but will not engage you here, lots of other threads for that. --- --> / Series 1 responding to "1. Covid transmission: Those 'brilliant minds' couldn't even figure out the basics of viral transmission principles. Why didn't they perform experiments consisting of a control group?" A study conducted in Japan found that COVID-19 can spread through aerosols and respiratory droplets, even in outdoor settings, highlighting the importance of wearing masks to prevent transmission (source: The Lancet). Scientists have performed numerous studies on viral transmission principles, including the use of control groups. One such study conducted by the CDC found that individuals who had close contact with COVID-19 patients were more likely to contract the virus, providing evidence of person-to-person transmission (source: CDC). Earlier studies published in the journal Nature Medicine found that the virus can remain infectious in aerosols for up to three hours and on surfaces for up to three days, which supports the importance of wearing masks and maintaining good hand hygiene to prevent the spread of the virus. (source: Nature). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 Centrist's View (=) it's important to recognize that scientific consensus is not always perfect, and that the scientific community is constantly learning and adapting to new information. As I am not a Covid-19 fanatic, maybe some information above is out of date, but still more reality-based than the wild theories I have been hearing around. 😄While it's important to be critical of claims made by experts, it's also important to acknowledge the vast amount of research and expertise that has gone into understanding the virus and developing effective strategies for prevention and treatment. Additionally, it's important to balance public health concerns with individual freedoms and personal responsibility, recognizing that both are important for a functioning society. --- --> / Series 2 responding to "2. Asymptomatic spread: Surprise, surprise, they got this one wrong too. It took ages for them to realize that there is nothing such as an asymptomatic spread spread. But to be honest, I am convinced they knew that since the beginning." 1. The delay in recognizing the potential for asymptomatic spread was due in part to the novelty of the virus and the rapidly evolving understanding of its transmission dynamics. However, the scientific community has been actively studying the issue since early in the pandemic, and the research continues to refine the understanding of the role of asymptomatic spread. A study published in JAMA Network Open focuses on that. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 2. This study from Nature found that individuals who tested positive for Covid-19 were able to transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms of the disease, or even if they never developed symptoms at all. This suggests that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is indeed possible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 3. Centrist's view: It is important to acknowledge that during a pandemic, scientific understanding of the virus and its transmission can evolve as new evidence emerges. While the study cited earlier provides evidence for the possibility of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19, it is possible that later in the pandemic, there was more information available on this topic. Please add to the conversation if you consider that my points are wrong. --- --> / Series 3 responding to "3. PCR testing: Flawed, over-sensitive, and generally misleading. Bravo, consensus! Bravo, Drosten! No test, no pandemic - which is why that PCR test was introduced." 1. A study conducted in Belgium, compared the diagnostic performance of four different PCR-based tests for Covid-19. The study found that all four tests had high levels of sensitivity and specificity, indicating that PCR testing is a reliable method for diagnosing COVID-19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26531 2. A study in South Korea found that widespread testing, including PCR testing, was crucial in controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. The study reported that aggressive testing, tracing, and isolation measures helped to reduce the spread of the virus, even without the need for strict lockdowns. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea 3. Centrist's View: While it is true that some people have raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of PCR testing, multiple studies have found that this method is an effective way to diagnose COVID-19. That being said, it is important to acknowledge that no testing method is perfect, and there may be some limitations to PCR testing. However, the medical community has been working hard to address any issues with testing accuracy. --- --> / Series 4 responding to "4. No early treatment: They were so adamant about waiting for the experimental shot that they discriminated against those who called for early interventions. Imagine if everyone was encouraged to take vitamin D, which would have caused a new record low for excess mortality while being in the middle of a dangerous pandemic!?" 1. While some studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation may have potential benefits for preventing and treating respiratory infections, there is insufficient evidence (unless you can present some new studies) to support the use of vitamin D as a treatment for COVID-19. A meta-analysis published in the BMJ found that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infections, but the studies included in the analysis were not specific to COVID-19. Additionally, a study published in JAMA found that high-dose vitamin D supplementation did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay, ICU admission, or mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.It's important to note that while vitamin D may have potential benefits for overall health, in my opinion, it should not be viewed as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccinations or other medical treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583 2. Several European studies have examined the efficacy of early treatments for COVID-19, including the use of antivirals such as remdesivir, and monoclonal antibodies such as bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab.A study conducted in France found that early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with remdesivir did not significantly reduce mortality or hospital stay in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.In contrast, monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients. A study conducted in Germany found that treatment with bamlanivimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.While early treatment is important, it's crucial to rely on evidence-based medicine to determine the most effective and safe treatments for COVID-19. Monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients, while other treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir have not shown significant benefits in clinical trials. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109682 3. A centrist view would recognize the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, while also acknowledging the limitations of such treatments. Consulting with a healthcare provider (family doctor) is crucial in determining the most appropriate course of treatment based on individual circumstances. --- --> / Series 5 will be responding to "5. Fatality rate: Wildly overestimated (thanks to the fraudulent PCR test), causing unnecessary panic, which most likely caused the observed excess mortality. Great job, guys." *This will air in a few days, as information gets circulates better when is released gradually. 😎 Thank you.

I specialize in opening up controversial discussions. I was thinking about discussing Danielle Smith of Alberta, but I want to make it clear that questionable language is used by politicians from all sides, all the way to the Federal Level, AND not just conservatives, + this was in private. Some use "communists", not "nazis". I use both. 😄 Trudeau's public display of anger during the convoy protests makes me wonder what he may have said in private. Oh, I have some theories about that, when he stood around announcing the Emergency Act, before then, my theory is that he said a lot in private about the convoy group, which I don't agree with by the way, just looking at the politician's hypocrisy. SERIOUS NOTE - Danielle Smith recently apologized for comments linking COVID vaccinations to Nazi followers, which doesn't surprise me due to the prevalence of such tactics even here on the board, on a daily basis. If people are so angry over Covid-19, a self-defense mechanism kicks in, and the word "nazi" "communist" "deep state" "conspiracy" "sheep" come out. I think it's important to be open-minded and start a poll to gauge whether people find it appropriate to use the word "Nazi" when discussing COVID-19? Options: 1. Yes, it's appropriate 2. No, is not appropriate 3. Other opinion

This thread is based on the article ⬆️ Trending from Global News: Most Canadians want universal mental health care. I still don't understand, how some can use the word "most" when the poll is made online, with only 1.626 adults, but that is beside the point. My Opinion on the actual theory: The pandemic has undoubtedly taken a toll on a lot of people's mental health, including my own, which I have publicly admitted on this forum. Rather than channeling my energy toward the outside world, the pandemic has led me to become more engrossed inside, isolation via work, internet addiction and many other distractions. To counterbalance this, I installed a mini gym behind me, which is a small space where I can work out and do boxing. I attempted to return to a semi-office setting briefly, but it didn't work out. For me, getting up early and wasting time commuting to work reduces productivity. As a remote worker, I am already ahead by the time most people arrive at their office. This is a message to those who keep criticizing remote work on this forum and think "real work" is the typical communistic doctrine with a uniform in the morning early at 7am, get with the times. Regarding mental health, every time I go out, I see the effects of the pandemic on people's mental well-being and is getting worse downtown where I am. I have noticed an increase in my consumption of alcoholic beverages and changes in my interactions with others. If you look at my history on this forum during the bad days, you will see that my behavior was not that of a normal human being. I am aware that others on this forum have also been impacted by personal struggles, disappointments, and the pandemic itself. Just read some of their messages too, and you will notice how mental health issues are present in everyone, some worse than others. 😎 So, what are your thoughts on implementing universal mental health care? I worry that not everyone will understand the importance of productivity at the end of the day and might misuse the system, using the therapist as a crutch to sugarcoat their problems. Can a balanced system be put in place? To address these issues OR Uncle Sugar getting involved in this (=) a bad idea?

Which one? A link with the pros and cons: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327395#which-is-better For me, I don't care which.

Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore is now ‘strongly recommending’ that Ontarians resume masking in all public indoor settings amid what he is calling a “triple threat” of respiratory viruses – RSV, flu and COVID-19. But he is stopping short of reintroducing a mask mandate for now and instead placing the onus on individuals to do their part to protect the most vulnerable among us. He is also calling on Ontarians to get their flu shots and take other precautions, such as screening for respiratory symptoms before attending work or school and practicing good hand hygiene. (Trending via the website CP24). https://www.cp24.com/news/ontarians-are-now-being-asked-to-resume-masking-indoors-here-is-what-you-need-to-know-about-when-to-mask-up-1.6151932

All healthcare would be better off being affordable, not free. - I'm not sure how the government would implement this but this would ideally mean more money going towards healthcare and faster and more effective services. Physical health and Mental health are important, but mental health is not free for all and it is not even affordable for the vast majority of people. Everyone is supposed to be treated the same in Canada but we need to establish that not everyone needs the same treatment and mental health plays a big factor in this. If we can extinguish the stigma surrounding mental health by having all Canadians evaluated at least once, and daily as children then society could see a huge change in a very positive way. Mental health is the foundation of what makes someone human. The big difference between human and animals is not only our thumbs but is, in fact, our minds. We have the ability to effectively communicate with our fellow man. If our mental health deteriorates because we lacked the resources then this causes a problem for the rest of society. Why put so many funds towards prisons and getting people jobs when we could easily reduce the numbers by taking an actual effort to help people with their psychological problems? Mental health needs more funds if we wish to keep people healthy and if we wish to show society even the government is serious about mental health and not just worried about people killing themselves. Sure it is horrible when this happens, but it is also horrible our own government would be so cheap and allow teens and adults alike to suffer to the point of wishing to die. There are many people who can't get a job, get addicted, and even commit crimes because of mental illness not being addressed properly. The government can argue that they are trying to combat mental illness by making people more aware, but I'm sure nearly all Canadians are painfully “aware”. Now it is on the government to take action. They need to realize people with mental illness don’t always have a clear mind and maybe it isn’t always for good reasons, but we can only blame the government for lack of resources and for not taking the issue as serious as it needs to be addressed. Some people feel alone and to be quite frank are alone in their heads much of the time. P.S I am not trying to claim we only have the government to blame, or that the government has ill intentions towards any Canadians, but stress that this issue is not being addressed properly because we need the government to address mental illness with a serious effort to help all affected by it because someones mental state can literally change in an instant. If someone could enlighten me whether it is truly free for all Canadians to receive mental health evaluations then that would be much appreciated. I tried researching but found many people claiming they had to pay.

http://looniepolitics.com/ontario-health-minister-refuses-assist-dying-mother/