[POLL] Have you felt sick or tested positive for COVID since Jan 2020?

Have you tested positive or felt sick in the past 2.5 years?

  • I have tested positie for COVID

    Votes: 67 42.4%

  • I have not tested positive for COVID but felt sick sometime since January 2020

    Votes: 35 22.2%

  • I have not tested positive for COVID and have never felt sick since January 2020

    Votes: 56 35.4%
  • Total voters
    158
I'm referring to the last pandemic....not a common cold.
Llewtrah381 said:
Well….there was no vaccine for the common cold in 1973 (random year) either and fewer people died. Not really relevant either.

We can believe what we want to believe. Just remember that doesn’t make it true in and of itself.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I'm referring to the last pandemic....not a common cold.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t the “last pandemic”: the “Spanish flu” (which didn’t originate in Spain) was later than that. There were no vaccines or effective treatments for that.

Don’t forget there wasn’t a true “global economy” back then and population density was much lower. World War I spread it pretty effectively.

But more to the point, is that position based on fact or “politics”? I try my best to go on facts, even if I don’t necessarily like the answer. In the end, it’s really the only way forward.
 
how many died in the last pandemic....with no jabs? And it was a global event? right?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
how many died in the last pandemic....with no jabs? And it was a global event? right?
Click to expand...
Do you believe this because it’s true - or what you want to believe for other reasons?

We’ve been through multiple influenza pandemics even in our lifetimes - all mitigated to varying degrees by vaccines. You may want to do some homework on this - it may change your opinions.
 
asking questions....since you have the answers. :confused:

Will the jabs eradicate COVID?
 
Eradicate it? No. I sincerely doubt it. Polio vaccines haven’t eradicated polio yet - but smallpox vaccines did. Have winter coats prevented ALL wearers from freezing to death? My guess is no. But they’ve protected many people and prevented many deaths from freezing is my guess.

That’s an artificial measure of success. Sounds like rationalizing, to be honest…
 
Last edited:
After 3 years of absolutely no sickness at all, I finally came down with 4 days worth of sniffles. Other than having to have some tissues handy, it was a nothing burger. There was no sneezing, no fever, no aches and the COVID test was negative. While I'm no longer the only one in the office not to have gotten sick in the past 3 years, I'm still the only one that hasn't gotten COVID yet.
 
January 2020 was when it mostly started here in the US, with the first cases arising here in Seattle (later investigation showed starting in other areas). February 2020, before the main publicity was going, my wife and I both suffered what we considered the worst cases of flu we ever had. In retrospect, we think those were Covid.

Otherwise, we kept clear of it. But in August this year, it finally caught up with us. Tested positive after a trip, fortunately, the most-recent, mild variant. Fatigue and stuffy head for me, fatigue, cough, and stuffy head for my wife. Due to other medical conditions, my wife's doctor put her on Paxlovid. She tested negative ~2 days later, after about five days of testing positive. However, she did get a rebound infection, but very minor. People we visited during the trip had started to come down with it before we left; eventually, none of them escaped it. As the news report said, the variant was mild, but extremely infectious.

Throughout this, I tested positive for three weeks total. After the first week, other than lingering fatigue, I didn't have any symptoms. Toward the end, the test card showed a very faint "positive" line....but it *was* there.

From February 2020 to this August, we had *no* illnesses in the household. No flu, no colds, no nothing. We attribute that to the heightened sanitary precautions in use, and masking.

We have had several friends go on cruises since July. All of them have come down with it during the cruise. All the latest, low-impact variant, but it did mess with their vacations.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Noticeably more kids getting sick this fall - seeing it on little league baseball and basketball teams, and my wife's pre-school has had an increase in kids (both attendees and teachers' kids) being sick enough to warrant not going to school. Not necessarily COVID sickness, but my (somewhat uneducated) assumption is that after a couple of school years with limited contact with others, the kids are missing some seasonal immunities.
 
Where's the option for I died in Jan 2020?
 
Just getting over Covid,this after I’ve had the shots and boosters. Got a reaction from every shot.
 
4th shot of Pfizer (third booster) 10/22, shingles vaccine in other arm the same time, flu shot a week later, got the Rona less than two weeks later after a concert 10/29. A woman I was with at the concert also got it and a woman I had dinner with Monday night, two days later after which I first felt sick, came down with it. She was not happy with me. It wasn't so bad at all. I've had much worse colds and nowhere near as bad as the flu. Just got sick of seeing that little positive line on the damn self-test into the second week.
 
At this point…why bother with the booster? The virus ain’t the monster Fauchi was pushing.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Do you believe this because it’s true - or what you want to believe for other reasons?

We’ve been through multiple influenza pandemics even in our lifetimes - all mitigated to varying degrees by vaccines. You may want to do some homework on this - it may change your opinions.
Click to expand...
Beliefs rarely get changed by knowledge. And so many of our opinions are controlled by them, even opinions that unnecessary deaths are not worth mitigating,
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Beliefs rarely get changed by knowledge. And so many of our opinions are controlled by them, even opinions that unnecessary deaths are not worth mitigating,
Click to expand...
Sadly, you’re correct, especially in this day and age, where beliefs and opinions are manipulated by our enemies around the world.

But I’m a physician, so especially with regard to healthcare, I’ve spent a career readjusting my medical beliefs and opinions based on new knowledge. How we treated menopause has changed radically. Heck - even how we screen for prostate cancer has greatly evolved. So, for my profession, it would be malpractice to hold on to false beliefs in the face of better understanding. And the topic at hand is healthcare.

Add: I always remind myself a lie I want to believe is still a lie, even if I didn’t tell it.
 
Last edited:
I’m at home this week with the latest variant, my wife also. Flu-like symptoms for us. First two days were the worst. We managed to avoid it for almost three years, but got it from family at Thanksgiving!
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Sadly, you’re correct, especially in this day and age, where beliefs and opinions are manipulated by our enemies around the world.

But I’m a physician, so especially with regard to healthcare, I’ve spent a career readjusting my medical beliefs and opinions based on new knowledge. How we treated menopause has changed radically. Heck - even how we screen for prostate cancer has greatly evolved. So, for my profession, it would be malpractice to hold on to false beliefs in the face of better understanding. And the topic at hand is healthcare.
Click to expand...
It's true of most professions. The problem is those who, regardless of profession, reject readjusting their beliefs and opinions as well as any contrary new knowledge. Doesn't matter what the topic is.
 
donjohnston said:
Yep. Big nothing burger.
Click to expand...

While some may say that, the truth lies somewhere between a complete "nothing burger" and the monster feared by others.

(interesting to note that the number of expected deaths doesn't appear to increase despite the increased population of the US and the increased average age of the population)
 
Yup…gotta follow the science…lol :D
Llewtrah381 said:
Sadly, you’re correct, especially in this day and age, where beliefs and opinions are manipulated by our enemies around the world.

But I’m a physician, so especially with regard to healthcare, I’ve spent a career readjusting my medical beliefs and opinions based on new knowledge. How we treated menopause has changed radically. Heck - even how we screen for prostate cancer has greatly evolved. So, for my profession, it would be malpractice to hold on to false beliefs in the face of better understanding. And the topic at hand is healthcare.

Add: I always remind myself a lie I want to believe is still a lie, even if I didn’t tell it.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Those of us with hard science backgrounds laugh at Fauchi’s “follow the science” garbage.
Click to expand...
What’s your medical/virology background that allows you to feel more certain of the science than a world-renowned expert?
 
Quoted before:


“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Asimov "A Cult of Ignorance", Newsweek, Jan. 21, 1980
 
Bob Noel said:
While some may say that, the truth lies somewhere between a complete "nothing burger" and the monster feared by others.

(interesting to note that the number of expected deaths doesn't appear to increase despite the increased population of the US and the increased average age of the population)
Click to expand...
The graph covers the last 5 years. In that time the population of the US increased less than 2%. So that increase would be difficult to pick out considering all the factors involved.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
What’s your medical/virology background that allows you to feel more certain of the science than a world-renowned expert?
Click to expand...
I maintain close personal relationships with medical doctors and PhD docs.

You are the first doctor I’ve ever heard refer to Dr. F as an expert in anything other than politics and success in a gov job.

I don’t think there is a political bias at play either because they are all center left dems.

Just find it interesting how varied the opinions of that man are among other docs.
 
Bob Noel said:
While some may say that, the truth lies somewhere between a complete "nothing burger" and the monster feared by others.

(interesting to note that the number of expected deaths doesn't appear to increase despite the increased population of the US and the increased average age of the population)
Click to expand...

The number of expected deaths for the week of 8/18/18 was 50,726
For the same week
2019 53,621
2020 53,581
2021 54,263
2022 53,030

It's an actuarial estimate and total population doesn't matter as much as 'population likely to die' iow 'old peoples'.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
??? Just trolling or is there an actual, constructive comment here, that I’m missing?
Click to expand...

I think what you are missing is that x years ago we did y to treat z and it was absolutely the way to do it. (Follow the science). Fast forward to today and we no longer do x. The whole follow the science ("this is the only way it can be done!!") can be a bit premature. Look at HIV in the 80's vs now.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I maintain close personal relationships with medical doctors and PhD docs.

You are the first doctor I’ve ever heard refer to Dr. F as an expert in anything other than politics and success in a gov job.

I don’t think there is a political bias at play either because they are all center left dems.

Just find it interesting how varied the opinions of that man are among other docs.
Click to expand...
There's a good chance you had never hear of him prior to the end of 2019. By contrast, I've known of him throughout the vast majority of my medical career. He became director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, his current primary job, in 1984 under Reagan and during my Family Practice training. He was the main "voice" I heard of the efforts to learn about and control AIDS/HIV - something he was recognized for globally as well. He did a ton of work on numerous other communicable diseases. He has been a principal editor of the gold-standard textbook of medicine during my training (Harrison's) since 1985 and was its editor-in-chief a few times. Even a quick check of Wikipedia will give you this and more. I'd say my statement has a lot backing it up and nothing to actually disprove it except people's wishes for the contrary.

He is clearly not expert at politics: that belongs to guys like Rand Paul who carry an MD title but are much better at manipulating the emotions of their constituents than practicing medicine. Fauci has consistently proven, in my opinion, to be a true scientist: his advice has consistently been based on the best facts of the time and is adjusted as new information emerges. People take that as him not knowing what he's talking about, because they believe what they want to believe and ignore that we ALL learn as we mature and our understanding of things changes over time.

Not sure what you mean or base the "center left dems" comment on. If it means people who are driven by reality and not wishful thinking are "center left dems", then I guess that may be true.

midlifeflyer said:
Beliefs rarely get changed by knowledge. And so many of our opinions are controlled by them
Click to expand...
Yeah, that...
 
EdFred said:
I think what you are missing is that x years ago we did y to treat z and it was absolutely the way to do it. (Follow the science). Fast forward to today and we no longer do x. The whole follow the science ("this is the only way it can be done!!") can be a bit premature. Look at HIV in the 80's vs now.
Click to expand...
First, the article he cited is in a Cardiovascular (not Cardiology) Business magazine and is basically an op-ed. It contains some points worth pondering but it's in no way scientific.

When you say "premature", what do you mean by what was done for HIV/AIDS in the '80's that was "premature", given the knowledge/science of the day? As the virus was identified, its mechanisms understood, medicines identified/created to target its actions and not normal cells, treatment for a uniformly fatal disease has morphed into making it a chronic illness - through science. We didn't start off using leeches, as was done not much over 100 years ago and was not based on science. Honestly - I'm not sure I understand your point but am interested in having it clarified.

The point is, science changes our understanding over time. When I started in medicine, it was the standard of care (read: it was essentially malpractice to not do this) to treat every menopausal woman with hormone replacement. Added studies showed that, although it cut down symptoms (which is even debatable), it had other long-term effects that made that care worse than not doing it. Was I "wrong" to have prescribed it 30 years ago? In hindsight, yes - but not "wrong" at the time. That's the nature of science: to not hold on to one's opinions or beliefs so strongly that they remain in error.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
First, the article he cited is in a Cardiovascular (not Cardiology) Business magazine and is basically an op-ed. It contains some points worth pondering but it's in no way scientific.

When you say "premature", what do you mean by what was done for HIV/AIDS in the '80's that was "premature", given the knowledge/science of the day? As the virus was identified, its mechanisms understood, medicines identified/created to target its actions and not normal cells, treatment for a uniformly fatal disease has morphed into making it a chronic illness - through science. We didn't start off using leeches, as was done not much over 100 years ago and was not based on science. Honestly - I'm not sure I understand your point but am interested in having it clarified.

The point is, science changes our understanding over time. When I started in medicine, it was the standard of care (read: it was essentially malpractice to not do this) to treat every menopausal woman with hormone replacement. Added studies showed that, although it cut down symptoms (which is even debatable), it had other long-term effects that made that care worse than not doing it. Was I "wrong" to have prescribed it 30 years ago? In hindsight, yes - but not "wrong" at the time. That's the nature of science: to not hold on to one's opinions or beliefs so strongly that they remain in error.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. It (Follow the science) was being sold (mostly politically) as an absolute, unwavering, no questions asked, do it this way, it will never be different than it is now path. But here we are, down the road, and turns out a lot of what we were being sold, wasn't the case. But yeah, lets "follow the science" when we are only 2 months into whatever situation, when we don't even have a full grasp on things. That's what was ridiculous with the whole follow the science mantra.

We will have to disagree on what is considered wrong. We may THINK something is right (or wrong) at the time, but time will tell if we actually were or not. Whether we acted in what we thought were the best interests doesn't change the "wrongitude" of it when the science is fully (or as much can ever be) settled.

I have an old astronomy book which is fun to read because of what we've discovered in the past 70 years. It doesn't change the fact that is written in the book is wrong just because it was the belief at the time.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
That's the whole point. It (Follow the science) was being sold (mostly politically) as an absolute, unwavering, no questions asked, do it this way, it will never be different than it is now path. But here we are, down the road, and turns out a lot of what we were being sold, wasn't the case. But yeah, lets "follow the science" when we are only 2 months into whatever situation, when we don't even have a full grasp on things. That's what was ridiculous with the whole follow the science mantra.

We will have to disagree on what is considered wrong. We may THINK something is right (or wrong) at the time, but time will tell if we actually were or not. Whether we acted in what we thought were the best interests doesn't change the "wrongitude" of it when the science is fully (or as much can ever be) settled.

I have an old astronomy book which is fun to read because of what we've discovered in the past 70 years. It doesn't change the fact that is written in the book is wrong just because it was the belief at the time.
Click to expand...
I think we may actually be in furious agreement here.

"Follow the science" being sold as an absolute, unwavering, no questions asked approach is an oxymoron being sold, as you say, mostly politically - I believe to allow people to believe what they want because "science gets it wrong so I can believe what I want". Although some may get caught up (hopefully temporarily) in their ownership of an idea, no credible scientist would consider anything absolute or unwavering unless that's what the science has shown (such as gravity - but even there, our understanding will evolve).

The initial reactions to AIDS, COVID-19, and other new problems is like having the engine stop in flight: "At the moment I don't know what caused it but let me first run the checklist RIGHT NOW to cover the most common causes and then go from there", followed by addressing the specific issue once it's more clearly identified, if able. That's what Fauci and others did when this all started as a bunch of cases of severe respiratory illness in adults. And at that time, the science of the day had "proven" that masks didn't add much. But experience primarily in Asia showed they did help more than earlier believed.

I agree re "wrong". "Incorrect", especially in hindsight, may be more precise and "wrong" may imply some willful error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top