Stepping out of Isolation

[NoAngels 303]

We have been discussing finally leaving our house and meeting people. I was open to meeting friends for drinks outdoors, my frisky wife had been contacting lifestyle friends for more than drinks. 

 

Beaches finally opened in N.J. including our national park beach in Sandy Hook that has a clothing optional area. We made a plan to meet a couple we have played with at the beach along with another couple. It was a perfect beach day. I will admit to laughing at the sight of nude people with masks on. Masks were not prevalent on most. Most of the talk was about what is going on and how we are dealing with it. Plenty of sex talk bordering on porn description. 

 

Our friends invited us back to their home to continue the day. Both couples were great to hang with and we were extremely comfortable spending the day with. I was less comfortable going back for what most certainly wouldn’t be social distancing. We took a rain check on the invite. I just wasn’t ready even if I may have been the only one who was still worrying. 

 

One the way home my wife seemed annoyed with me. She thinks we won’t be invited in the future. I am just being careful, possibly over cautious. 

[njbm 2,730]

You can only make one mistake with covid19. I endorse your caution. If they are a nice, considerate couple, you will get another chance. We have had many near misses, snubs and unexpected no second times in the lifestyle. It’s just part of the hobby, there are always new people to meet. You have no idea as to the other couple’s contacts. 
 

We are in New Jersey, also, and our friends from other parts of the country often are unaware of how bad the pandemic is in NJ. Stay safe, hope for a vaccine or treatment and congrats for getting out. We belong to a nudist resort and we are hesitant to go. 

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

As a healthcare professional in the front lines of care of COVID patients, I will attest that your caution and prudence are entirely appropriate. While your wife's disappointment is understandable, we continue to see apparently healthy people sicken and in some cases die from the infection. LS friends who are true friends will accept your caution. 

[padoc 1,696]

2 hours ago, NoAngels said:

2 hours ago, NoAngels said:

2 hours ago, NoAngels said:

"my wife seemed annoyed with me. She thinks we won’t be invited in the future. I am just being careful, possibly over cautious"  It seems that your wife had a plan and you probably knew that if you ended up naked with these folks, play time would follow. Perhaps you should have had an expectations conversation with your wife BEFORE you went to the beach.

 

 

 

[lcmim 1,033]

Common sense should and did win the day this time. Sounds like you and your lady need to talk about being on the same page.

 

[NoAngels 303]

On 6/1/2020 at 3:18 PM, padoc said:

It seems that your wife had a plan and you probably knew that if you ended up naked with these folks, play time would follow. Perhaps you should have had an expectations conversation with your wife BEFORE you went to the beach.

We are very open in our discussions. Our marriage has been one that others might call Open. We have had a don’t ask, don’t tell relationship. Our marriage became different when we agreed to play with others together. When we agreed to meet people on the beach we talked and we agreed to see how the day would go. It’s not that we ruined any fun the other couples would have. 

 

My wife wanted to play, I know that. She even told me she wanted to. I am happy she didn’t make more out of the situation of me wanting to delay our contact with the others. 

[njbm 2,730]

You lived to play another day. That’s a win.
 

New Jersey has been clobbered by the pandemic. A younger friend offered to grocery shop for us because he went regularly and we don’t want to. We said no thank you. He continued to go out, he got it, gave it to his immunocompromised wife. Fortunately, they are both on the upswing. 

 

Hope everyone makes good decisions for their situations. 

[GoldCoCouple 4,022]

Taking a risk by responding here, but the FACTS say that unless you are older (65+) and or experiencing a weakened immune system, or are taking care of or living with someone who is 65+ and/or weakened immune system, the worst thing that can happen is you 'catch' something that will seem like the flu. You will be sick for a few days then you will get better. Despite popular mis-belief, a mask won't 'filter' it out and keep you from catching it, it only prevents someone that already had Covid from spreading it as easily (via water droplets when they sneeze or cough). If you are in the 'danger' group, or around others that could be susceptible, then you shouldn't be thinking about playing with others until things improve. I don't think that you want to be the cause of someone else possibly dying because of you having a little bit of fun. If you are not in the danger group and don't mind the risk of catching the flu (the flu is still MUCH MORE COMMON than catching Covid) then go for it. If you aren't sure which group you belong to, then take the safe route and stop playing until things improve in your area. If you are just scared of everything the media tells you (and not just what they are saying about Covid), maybe just don't even leave the house. Life is a risk, and the only way not to take that risk is to not play the game.

 

Any responses...please be kind. I know that this is a hot topic and that there are two very opposed camps here. However, if you do some research, the truth is out there and the version of the truth that we have found says that more people (10 times more) will die of the flu than Covid...and they will die of the exact same reasons: old age and/or compromised immune system.

[adamgunn 1,457]

14.1% of the deaths in California have been in the 35-59 year old age group. 

 

More research is happening all the time, to suggest that you do anything based on current statistics (other than say, "Yeah, I ought to wear a face mask",) is a mistake, in my opinion.

[NC_Seniors 492]

GoldCo -- You asked us to be kind and I'll try ... BUT!
 
1) No, the FACTS don't say that "the worst thing that can happen is you 'catch' something that will seem like the flu.  You will be sick for a few days then you will get better."  Two 17-year-olds died in Florida last week.  An eight-year-old died in Durham, NC -- just 20 miles from us -- earlier this month.  People of all ages and in seemingly good health are dying from this.  Just this afternoon, the CDC released more information saying that your risks are higher if you have COPD, or hypertension, or a BMI over 30, or ... all kinds of medical conditions that have nothing do with being immune-compromised.  So your statement simply isn't correct.
 
2) Your phrase, "the version of the truth that we have found" is as nonsensical as Kellyanne Conway's reference to "alternative facts".  There's no such thing as a version of the truth ... something is either true or it's not.  
 
Please tell us all where you got your information, because I'd love to see it for myself.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

On 6/25/2020 at 3:17 PM, NC_Seniors said:

GoldCo -- You asked us to be kind and I'll try ... BUT!
 
1) No, the FACTS don't say that "the worst thing that can happen is you 'catch' something that will seem like the flu.  You will be sick for a few days then you will get better."  Two 17-year-olds died in Florida last week.  An eight-year-old died in Durham, NC -- just 20 miles from us -- earlier this month.  People of all ages and in seemingly good health are dying from this.  Just this afternoon, the CDC released more information saying that your risks are higher if you have COPD, or hypertension, or a BMI over 30, or ... all kinds of medical conditions that have nothing do with being immune-compromised.  So your statement simply isn't correct.
 
2) Your phrase, "the version of the truth that we have found" is as nonsensical as Kellyanne Conway's reference to "alternative facts".  There's no such thing as a version of the truth ... something is either true or it's not.  
 
Please tell us all where you got your information, because I'd love to see it for myself.

Concerning COVID-19, there is no independent arbiter of what is true or untrue. The study of infectious disease is not something as objective as a math problem.

 

Experts (so-called) have contradicted themselves from the very beginning (for example, originally the World Health Organization said COVID-19 could not be spread by human-to-human contact; Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, originally said masks were not only unnecessary, but would actually contribute to the spreading of the disease.)

 

These contradictions should be expected. Our understanding of the disease is not static; rather, it is fluid and evolving all the time.

 

Statistically, according to current information accessible through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other reliable sources, here is what we understand today:

 

COVID-19 is far less deadly than originally believed. Increased testing and reporting has continued to demonstrate the rate of mortality is generally comparable to influenza. 

 

There are, however, some meaningful differences between COVID-19 and influenza. Young people, for instance, are less likely to be hospitalized by COVID-19 than by influenza. For children aged 0-17, "... COVID-19 cumulative hospitalization rates are much lower than cumulative influenza hospitalization rates..." quoting directly from the CDC.

 

The lowest rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the general population is for people aged 5-17.

 

The highest rate of hospitalization in the general population is for people aged 65 and older.

 

The rate of hospitalization for people aged 50-64 is roughly half that of people aged 65 and older.

 

COVID-19 mortality is highest for people aged 65 and older with the presence of at least one co-morbidity factor such as hypertension, diabetes, compromised immune systems, obesity, COPD, etc. Those with multiple co-morbidity factors were most likely to have negative outcomes (read: die.) Not surprisingly, these are the same people most likely to have negative outcomes from influenza.

 

Yes, as always, there are anomalies. We can find instances where a 100 year-old smoker beat COVID-19 and a strapping 20 year-old athlete succumbed to it. That is the nature of every disease.

[Idahocouple6969 294]

I know I am over reacting but.....

 

Gold you are actually saying "you want to have sex, you have waited long enough and what the hell the only people it could KILL are old people and people that are already sick. Or they were going to get sick anyway. Paraphrasing Ebenezer Scrooge "if they are going to die, let them and decrease the surplus population."

 

Since many of us fit into one of the above categories.... thanks a lot. ?

 

Yeah I know that isn't what you mean. But in fact that is exactly what you are saying. 

[AndrewandAnn 359]

17 hours ago, Idahocouple6969 said:

I know I am over reacting but.....

 

Gold you are actually saying "you want to have sex, you have waited long enough and what the hell the only people it could KILL are old people and people that are already sick. Or they were going to get sick anyway. Paraphrasing Ebenezer Scrooge "if they are going to die, let them and decrease the surplus population."

 

Since many of us fit into one of the above categories.... thanks a lot. ?

 

Yeah I know that isn't what you mean. But in fact that is exactly what you are saying. 

That's your interpretation of their post.

 

Mine is entirely different.

 

 

[padoc 1,696]

Mine too!  

 

People bear the ultimate responsibility for their own health. Assess your risks and act accordingly. If you are over 65 and have serious underlying health conditions, wear a mask, stay home and avoid exposure. The 2 teens in Florida and the 8 year old did die, there is, of course, no additional info on that, just the shock value reports. Even if those 3 didn't have other complications, those deaths, while sad, are statistically insignificant. The death rate for Wuhan remains quite low considering the number of identified cases and the fact that there have likely been many, many more cases that have not been identified. If you're vulnerable or simply afraid, by all means, err on the side of caution. Don't make your vulnerability or fear everyone elses responsibility.

[Idahocouple6969 294]

Wow what a horrible place this has become.  Asking for validation to have sex....no matter what could happen. You can go to the store and spread it around Walmart and GREAT aunt Ida gets it because she stood next to you at the pharmacy while you picked out some new condom's. But that doesn't matter because you are horny. And by God you are going to have sex no matter what. I am guessing that the 200,000 dead Americans would disagree. Swinging is obviously more important than the health of your family Have at it I'm out. 

[padoc 1,696]

FYI…We have not engaged in swinging activity since the holidays. We CHOSE to step back. If we CHOOSE to play with another couple any time soon, we will not ask anyone else for validation or permission. Nor will we wag our fingers in disapproval at anyone who chooses a different path forward than ours. BTW, if Aunt Ida has underlying medical conditions, she'd be a damned sight safer nearly anywhere other than Walmart. If she's at risk, her meds can be home delivered. It would be her responsibility to see to her own well being.

 

As far as I know, there is no evidence of sexually transmitted Wuhan. As of June 26th CDC says 126,000 deaths, NOT 200,000. Its likely that Gov Wolf and Gov Cuomo are responsible for more deaths in nursing homes than any swingers are or ever will be. There is a nice focal point for your outrage rather than at seeming healthy people deciding to share consensual sex in the privacy of their homes.

[NC_Seniors 492]

padoc — Yes, swinging (or not) is *your* choice.  But it’s not solely about whether or not you share consensual sex ... it’s also about what you do afterwards.  So what other actions are you taking?  Do you wear masks when you go out?  Do you try to maintain at least 6’ of separation from other people?  Do you stay home if you have sniffles or a mild cough?  By exposing yourself to more people who just might pass an infection on to you, you risk passing it on to others even in a non-sexual setting.  Aunt Ida shouldn’t HAVE TO stay at home all the time when she maybe *needs* to go out because her pharmacy / grocery store doesn’t deliver and she has nobody to run her errands for her.  You seem to want the freedom to do whatever you please, but then you tell others they should stay home because of what you might subsequently do to them.  THAT’S the problem with your position.  Freedom carries with it responsibility ... more people need to practice it for the good of EVERYone!

[padoc 1,696]

If Aunt Ida is in the over 65 age bracket with underlying conditions then she should know the risks of going out and should take precautions or not as she chooses. If her pharmacy or grocery doesn't deliver and she's at risk, she should find a pharmacy or grocery that does. Ida doesn't "have to" stay home. By staying home and isolated she mitigates her risks but  IT IS ENTIRELY HER CHOICE! Yet, her choices should have no impact on my behavior.

 

What do I do? I haven't shaken hands since January, I wipe down my office after each visitor, I wash my hands regularly,  I wear a mask where it's required, doctors office, dentist, barber shop, etc. By muscle memory and training, I've always maintained a safe zone. Call it social distancing if you will but after 30 years on the street,  its a life long habit for me. Despite us being 67 and 62 and exercising our freedoms as  Americans, neither my wife nor I have contracted Wuhan. We both go to work every day and we've maintained our more or less healthy lifestyle since this started in January. Perhaps the difference is that we have not gone into  panic mode other than a few extra purchases of t/p and paper towels. We are cautious and aware but we don't live in fear. And when we're ready to resume swinging we will do so fully understanding that there may be some risk, as there always is with this hobby. However, we will be with friends we trust and in the privacy of our home or theirs. It will be awhile before we go to a swingers club or hotel takeover, those are of a risk greater than we choose to assume. Life is about choices and risk management.

[NC_Seniors 492]

16 minutes ago, padoc said:

I haven't shaken hands since January, I wipe down my office after each visitor, I wash my hands regularly,  I wear a mask where it's required, doctors office, dentist, barber shop, etc. By muscle memory and training, I've always maintained a safe zone.

????

[ShyCouple1019 17]

In Il (suburbs of Chicago) we went for our first bike ride yesterday and stopped by a few outside bars to visit friends (safely), but even though IL is on the "up" in a good way, we feel that "we've made it this far" actually spoken by a teenager :-), we're blessed to have careers in technology & the restaurant business, have 2 fathers not well in FL, and would never want to hurt anybody else.       Side note, mid April, I sent him for groceries and a covid test, test was negative, but beyond blessed that they caught a pulmonary embolism, 4 days ICU. I met nurse in ER parking lot, heartbreaking the people sleeping/crying in cars, nurses exhausted, then come home (can't allow anyone in home of course) and one neighbor has 2 kids that are nurses and two grandkids they haven't met, and another neighbor with a party of 40.  We know every situation is different  (I have two nieces that look exactly alike and got yelled at for walking together), but do feel several of our family & friends got "selfish" too early.

 

[PSULioness 754]

1 hour ago, padoc said:

Despite us being 67 and 62 and exercising our freedoms as  Americans, neither my wife nor I have contracted Wuhan.

Am I missing something? Wuhan? You didn’t contract a city? I bet you didn’t get Kung Flu either. 

You certainly made this post political and claiming your rights as an American. What about the sensibility of not harming others? I just wonder if you wear a mask in public? Pants? Do you use a seatbelt? 

Yes do what you wish but don’t subject others to your political statements

 

[padoc 1,696]

You're quite sensitive, aren't you?

[PSULioness 754]

1 hour ago, padoc said:

You're quite sensitive, aren't you?

Just young and educated and base my judgment on science not on politics. 

American rights are curtailed by many laws. Just look at all the freedoms you give up when you get in a car. Do you stop at a stop sign? Do you drive 150mph? Wait that’s a red light ahead, screw that I have rights. 

[njbm 2,730]

I think it is inappropriate to refer to the coronavirus or Covid 19 as Wuhan. I am sure that the people of Wuhan regret that it started there. But to refer to it as “ Wuhan” strikes me as biased. The Spanish Flu began in Kansas, but they tagged that one on Spain. I find it only slightly less offensive than Kung flu. I am sure others agree. Let’s focus on controlling it in our country, which has been an abject failure compared to Europe, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea and even China. 

[NoAngels 303]

13 hours ago, PSULioness said:

Just young and educated and base my judgment on science not on politics. 

American rights are curtailed by many laws. Just look at all the freedoms you give up when you get in a car. Do you stop at a stop sign? Do you drive 150mph? Wait that’s a red light ahead, screw that I have rights. 

Go get him girl. Sounds like a real Jersey Girl to me. 

[AndrewandAnn 359]

On 6/28/2020 at 7:48 PM, njbm said:

I think it is inappropriate to refer to the coronavirus or Covid 19 as Wuhan. I am sure that the people of Wuhan regret that it started there. But to refer to it as “ Wuhan” strikes me as biased. The Spanish Flu began in Kansas, but they tagged that one on Spain. I find it only slightly less offensive than Kung flu. I am sure others agree. Let’s focus on controlling it in our country, which has been an abject failure compared to Europe, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea and even China. 

Your're understanding of the origin of the term "Spanish" flu needs some refining. It had nothing to do with bigotry against the Spanish people or any kind of intentional mis-direction. Without going through a long and boring history lesson about WWI, the suppression of news reports concerning the rapid spread of this deadly disease, and so on, suffice to say it was called the "Spanish" flu because the majority of news stories about this spread of this strain of the flue were coming from Spain's newspapers. As the stories made there way through the rest of Europe, people logically assumed Spain was ground zero, hence the name "Spanish" flu.

 

Ironically, in Spain, it was referred to as the "French" flu because the Spanish believed it originated in France.

 

Also, to suggest the "Spanish" flu BEGAN in Kansas is a misnomer. It was first REPORTED in Kansas. That has nothing to do with source of the disease. Modern genetic research (obviously unavailable in 1918) suggests the Spanish flu, like the current COVID-19 pandemic, originated in China.

 

Lastly, and this general comment is not particularly aimed at you... I find it unfortunate that the discussion around this topic has taken on such an "us versus them" political tone. The fact is, there is no one-size-fits all way of managing this disease. Disease mitigation protocols that make sense in Los Angeles County California, with a population of nearly 10.5 million people, do not make sense for Buffalo County South Dakota, with a population of less than 2,000 people. The risks are entirely different.

 

And there will always be tension where the rights of the individual are being subjugated to the will of the many. The United States is built upon a foundation that places a premium on individual liberty, not on majority rule. Contrary to currently popular labels, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. The difference between the two is far more than a question of semantics.

[njbm 2,730]

I did not indicate any political interest or opinion in my post. I just think that referring to the coronavirus as the Wuhan flu or the Kung flu is a derogatory reference to Asians. 
 

Historically, it appears that people like to name these diseases after unliked countries or cities to assign blame to them for the illness. While the Chinese government may not have handled many issues in a transparent and truthful manner, the average resident of Wuhan does not deserve the blame.  
 

Covid 19 or coronavirus covers it. I would not want this illness to be called the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut virus or the Florida-Texas-Arizona virus, either. 

[AndrewandAnn 359]

16 hours ago, njbm said:

I did not indicate any political interest or opinion in my post. I just think that referring to the coronavirus as the Wuhan flu or the Kung flu is a derogatory reference to Asians. 
 

Historically, it appears that people like to name these diseases after unliked countries or cities to assign blame to them for the illness. While the Chinese government may not have handled many issues in a transparent and truthful manner, the average resident of Wuhan does not deserve the blame.  
 

Covid 19 or coronavirus covers it. I would not want this illness to be called the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut virus or the Florida-Texas-Arizona virus, either. 

It appears you missed the point of my post entirely.

 

[njbm 2,730]

1 hour ago, AndrewandAnn said:

It appears you missed the point of my post entirely.

 

You as well. 

[lovefest04 685]

On 6/28/2020 at 3:56 PM, padoc said:

If Aunt Ida is in the over 65 age bracket with underlying conditions then she should know the risks of going out and should take precautions or not as she chooses. If her pharmacy or grocery doesn't deliver and she's at risk, she should find a pharmacy or grocery that does. Ida doesn't "have to" stay home. By staying home and isolated she mitigates her risks but  IT IS ENTIRELY HER CHOICE! Yet, her choices should have no impact on my behavior.

 

What do I do? I haven't shaken hands since January, I wipe down my office after each visitor, I wash my hands regularly,  I wear a mask where it's required, doctors office, dentist, barber shop, etc. By muscle memory and training, I've always maintained a safe zone. Call it social distancing if you will but after 30 years on the street,  its a life long habit for me. Despite us being 67 and 62 and exercising our freedoms as  Americans, neither my wife nor I have contracted Wuhan. We both go to work every day and we've maintained our more or less healthy lifestyle since this started in January. Perhaps the difference is that we have not gone into  panic mode other than a few extra purchases of t/p and paper towels. We are cautious and aware but we don't live in fear. And when we're ready to resume swinging we will do so fully understanding that there may be some risk, as there always is with this hobby. However, we will be with friends we trust and in the privacy of our home or theirs. It will be awhile before we go to a swingers club or hotel takeover, those are of a risk greater than we choose to assume. Life is about choices and risk management.

This entire thread is so interesting as it points to the greater issues in our society. What does freedom mean? What does it mean to be a participant in a community? Are we all responsible for the health of others or are we all only responsible for our individual health?

 

I've been put off by Padoc in the past, but enjoy the clear on committed perspective and the willingness to defend a point of view counter to at least a number of members here.

 

Do we require everyone to be vaccinated once a vaccine is developed 'for the good of the country'? Or do we decide that vaccination is 'optional'? At what point does this decision intersect with a persons rights to make their own decisions...to be free?

 

I have thought about this ALOT, as many of you have as well. There is no answer that works for everyone. So what to do?

 

Yes, we all make certain sacrifices to participate in the greater community. we make agreements around stop signs, red lights and certain behavior that allows the collective to function in a more harmonious way. (Unfortunately, even for us exhibitionists, we can't have sex on a table at our local McDonalds). But, there is always a line where the agreement crosses a persons willingness to trade off their right to freedom for the rights of the collective. I think COVID 19 has really shined a light on that.

 

I for one fall somewhere in the middle. I'm okay with making some agreements. I wear a mask when I'm out. I see it as a small inconvenience that helps me not transmit the virus, assuming I have it, to others. But beyond that, I don't think I will take responsibility for others. I will not get a vaccine. I see that as an invasion of my right that is greater than the need of the community. That is not an attack on others, it is simply that I hold my right to not be injected with a chemical as an inalienable right.

 

I gather Padoc feels similarly (and I don't mean to speak for Padoc). Whether it's engaging in sex, shopping, walking etc etc. It is all the same. Let's not make having sex somehow less necessary or more of an a front, that's just a judgement. All activities people choose to engage should be the same in terms of the choice of freedom.

 

Thanks for listening. Again, I don't think there is AN answer here. There is understanding of people's perspectives and respecting others decisions, and at the end of the day that's it.

[Jane1902 476]

Love, so well put. 

 

Science isn’t always exact and the information changes daily as we learn more. My own opinion has changed over time. Unfortunately there has been a lot of polarizing ideas and there is also a  fair bit of shaming our culture these days. Wearing masks in public shouldn’t be such an issue. People will do what they’re going to do in private. Some will continue to feel invincible, maybe there will be more closed groups for lifestyle participants. Personally I am limiting my social bubble to just one for now.

 

Masks are a new fashion accessory. They are the last thing off in doffing PPE. It’s funny meeting people with their mask on and then when it is removed (I work in healthcare) seeing what the rest of their face looks like. 

 

I do find amusing the videos people post of themselves ranting how they’re not wearing a mask out and being belligerent. I don’t think being as asshole is an exemption.

[njbm 2,730]

I am mystified as to why Lovefest doesn’t want a vaccine. Are you vaccinated for measles, mumps, polio, tetanus? Wouldn’t you want a coronavirus vaccine for your own protection?I am not going to sign up for the first vaccine out of the chute, but if a safe and effective vaccine is out for a couple of months, I will get it to protect me, my family and my neighbors. 

[PSULioness 754]

To that point, vaccinations for many diseases are mandatory to enter school. Last year, in NJ, there was a breakout of measles because some parts of society didn’t stick to the mandate. Measles had been thought to have been eradicated. Most of the cases occurred amongst the people not vaccinated but they everyone in danger. Smallpox has been eradicated, polio too because of mandated vaccinations. Those who don’t get a vaccine are selfish and put the general population at risk. 

 

Today’s news said that the Northeast, specifically NY and NJ had the highest use of face coverings and guess what, they have the best record of slowing the transmission. A mask protects others and others wearing protects you. 

 

Dr. Bruce Springsteen said it best, Put on a fuckin mask. I just wish the guy who claims he is the smartest and knows everything because he’s a stable genius would not tell everyone that you don’t need one. 

[lovefest04 685]

20 hours ago, PSULioness said:

Those who don’t get a vaccine are selfish and put the general population at risk. 

That statement is just wrong and its a huge judgement. I do choose to put myself at risk, but not others that have vaccinated. They are protected from selfish people like me.

 

Is it my responsibility to protect the entire population, or does the right to liberty supersede that? This is the interesting dilemma.

 

There are children that have terrible reactions to peanuts. Should we make all peanut based products illegal? Do we punish a child that is set to school with a PB&J in their lunch. Do you make the entire class adhere to that standard or the entire school as kids might share on the playground? I happen to love PB&J's, still eat them to this day.

 

I am not advocating for killing children, but I do believe that living entails risks, some humans are at greater risk than others. That goes for measles, mumps etc. So, what does the remainder of the population do?

 

I think wearing a mask is a non-invasive, simple request, so I do so. But injecting people with a man made drug is different. To me it's a whole different ballgame. And I choose not to participate in that. I assume the risks for myself.

 

By the way, if everyone else is vaccinated, then in theory, I shouldn't need to because you have protected yourselves. I therefore am choosing to take the risk of being infected. That's my choice and my right as a free person.

 

The question is just how far should an individual or society be required to go to protect against all risk? Should that be mandated? Can it be mandated under a constitution that guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all?

 

A quandary really. I'm afraid that our fears, real and otherwise, are contributing to the continued reduction of our liberties as a nation and a free people.

 

FYI: I don't intend to espouse any political view but rather try to consider these issues in terms of logic, the science of.

 

[njbm 2,730]

Why do you want everyone else to get vaccinated and protect you, but you don’t want to participate? 
 

I, too, will make a judgment about the safety and efficacy of any proposed vaccine. But if I am assured that it will safely work, I will get it. 
 

In the last several years, I have heard a lot about individual people’s rights, liberty and freedom. I don’t hear much about a sense of community, neighborhoods, patriotism and concern for those who are less fortunate. I fear that we are moving towards or have reached a selfish, kill or be killed, I got mine, you get yours society. Death Race 2020.  I, personally, do not like it. 

[lcmim 1,033]

njbm, What you describe is real.

I think that there has been a polarity reversal in how we interact with the world.

 

When very much younger I was taught a code that was very strict  as far as my own actions went  and very forgiving as to how others acted. This was religious for me , but others my age have similar stories that are strictly ethical..

 

In the sixties we began to think that the "problems" (pick from the menu war, racism, sexism, economic....) were someone else's fault and they need to be reformed. The fault  was never within ourselves. "Enlightenment" is a trap.

 

Sometimes when confronted with something objectively evil it can be hard to refrain from confrontation. I have always found that acting personally in accordance to what I see as the correct path has provided ample opportunity for confrontation without having to manufacture it as we seem to do more and more.

[adamgunn 1,457]

I am constantly amazed that we, as a society, have forgotten that responsibility for our brethren is the complement of freedom and liberty.

 

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

On 7/7/2020 at 8:40 AM, adamgunn said:

I am constantly amazed that we, as a society, have forgotten that responsibility for our brethren is the complement of freedom and liberty.

 

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

A brief pause in the conversation to remark on the civility and thoughtfulness that has gone into adamgunn's remark and into so many above. It is a feature of this board--and of the LS community that chooses to participate--that we can have discussion without polarization on a broad mix of topics. We value our LS friends and the LS community for a variety reasons, many of which do not involve playtime. The notion of responsibility--personal and for our intimates and for our brethren--is part of who you are and who we are. 

[AndrewandAnn 359]

On 7/5/2020 at 3:46 PM, njbm said:

I am mystified as to why Lovefest doesn’t want a vaccine. Are you vaccinated for measles, mumps, polio, tetanus? Wouldn’t you want a coronavirus vaccine for your own protection?I am not going to sign up for the first vaccine out of the chute, but if a safe and effective vaccine is out for a couple of months, I will get it to protect me, my family and my neighbors. 

Like many people, you are confusing mandatory vaccinations with recommended/optional vaccinations.  They are not the same.

 

Firstly, regarding mandatory vaccinations, a nationwide model does not exist. The "mandatory" vaccination regime is determined by each state, not federally, and differs from one community to the next. There are, however, certain vaccinations that are fairly universal in their practice.

 

Secondly, the mandatory vaccinations are usually tied to school-age children who actually attend school. Children who do not attend school (for example, are educated within the home) are not required to be immunized. In fact, there exist certain vaccinations exemptions for children whom do attend school.

 

Lastly, there exist many vaccines for serious common, communicable illnesses (i.e., influenza, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, etc.) for which there is no "mandatory" requirement.

 

Given that influenza and COVID-19 share a similar mortality rate, are you "mystified" when someone chooses not to participate in the annual influenza vaccine? Do you participate in the annual influenza vaccine? Likewise, pneumonia is one of the more common illnesses that lead to death in the elderly population. Are you mystified when someone chooses not to participate in the pneumococcal vaccination regime? Do you participate in pneumococcal vaccination regime?

 

The hepatitis B vaccine is specifically recommended to people whom are not sexually monogamous. Are you "mystified" by people within our own community who do not participate in the hepatitis B vaccine?  Do you participate in the hepatitis B vaccine? Do you query your potential partner(s) regarding his/her/their vaccination regime?

 

I'm not singling you out. I am simply pointing out that the issue of vaccinations is not cut and dry. It is, by and large, highly subjective and based upon one's personal choices and decisions, particularly as it relates to recommended vaccinations.

 

Lastly, there are many things people choose to do, or not do, that have a far greater impact on society than vaccinations. According to the CDC, heart disease kills roughly 650,000 people every year (in 2020, that equates to about six times as many people as have died in the US from COVID-19), causing billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs to society. Heart disease is, for the most part, entirely lifestyle-related.

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

A remark on vaccination and public health. 

 

It is a fact that individuals can exclude themselves from certain public health measures. Such exclusions can be for cause, for example a more important medical condition or some religious grounds. In most other cases, there is a negative incentive to promote compliance with the norm. Drivers who choose to not use seat belts or to text whilst driving are subject to fines. Failure to clear debris or snow from a public walkway in front of one's home is subject to a fine. And so on. 

 

Vaccination is somewhat unique. Because the action in any other context would be labelled a criminal act (injecting a foreign substance into my/your body), we have come to rely on an opt in approach. That in turn depends on the decision being even more informed than the decision about whether or not to wear a seat belt. Part of the strategy is normal pediatric care--immunizations are scheduled and aligned with another public service, namely school attendance.

 

In the adult world, immunizations are left optional for a variety of reasons. Autonomy is deemed a higher priority than the public good. Even Medicare, which is a federal program, gets about a 50% vaccination rate for all beneficiaries each year for the annual influenza vaccine. There are ongoing studies that model potential lives saved is the vaccination rate would rise from 50->higher->100% among Medicare beneficiaries. 

 

COVID is a much bigger deal than influenza. The case fatality rate continues to be estimated as ten-fold higher by people whose credentials go beyond Facebook membership. The transmissibility is at least as high as influenza, and again most experts believe it is much higher. 

 

As professionals who work at the intersection of public health and critical care, we do indeed wonder at--read "are mystified by"--by individuals who decline to be vaccinated absent a clear medical contraindication. While you are correct that the choice to (not) be vaccinated somehow reflects a personal decision scheme, those decision schemes often seem irrational. We have heard a variety of statements along the lines of "the preservative causes autism" (influenza vaccines can be had preservative-free); "I know three people who were paralyzed by the vaccine" (really? please share their names); "the vaccine gave me the flu the last time I got it" (these are killed virus or component molecules); "it's too expensive" (it's free with every health plan we know, and the out of pocket cost is about $35 if you pay full freight at the CVS); "Bill Gates is implanting microchips" (I won't dignify that with a response, but we have heard this excuse more than once)  and so on. Mostly, it's people not wanting the temporary discomfort of the vaccination event.   As for the potential that a virus might cause harm, in thse exceedingly rare instances, there is a federal no-fault compensation program, see https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

 

Yes , we are vaccinated against pneumococcus, zoster, hepatitis B, annual influenza, Td, and we did indeed have measles as kids and have the titers to prove it. If we were age-allowable, we would have taken the HPV vaccine (we are over 45...if you are 45 or younger, look into it)  We will participate in COVID vaccine trials if allowed, and will line up for the vaccine if we are either not allowed into the trials or we are later told that we did not convert (likely the result of getting the placebo). In our view, with the exception of Td (tetanus is not a highly transmissible disease) our decisions are as much for the common good as they are a personal good. 

 

In our opinion, the public good is vastly more important than the personal benefit; for this reason, we advise, endorse, and promote universal vaccination plans with opt outs limited to medical or religious exemptions. We know others will disagree. We hope they will state their case without resorting to the autonomy ("I just don't want to") or civil liberty ("The Constitution says I don't have to do this") argument. Or, for that matter, the absurd Bill-Gates-is-implanting-microchips comment. 

[Fitlakecouple 450]

On 6/28/2020 at 7:10 PM, PSULioness said:

Just young and educated and base my judgment on science not on politics. 

American rights are curtailed by many laws. Just look at all the freedoms you give up when you get in a car. Do you stop at a stop sign? Do you drive 150mph? Wait that’s a red light ahead, screw that I have rights. 

This works best... "You've chosen to ignore content by padoc."

[AndrewandAnn 359]

4 hours ago, Fundamental Law said:

A remark on vaccination and public health. 

 

It is a fact that individuals can exclude themselves from certain public health measures. Such exclusions can be for cause, for example a more important medical condition or some religious grounds. In most other cases, there is a negative incentive to promote compliance with the norm. Drivers who choose to not use seat belts or to text whilst driving are subject to fines. Failure to clear debris or snow from a public walkway in front of one's home is subject to a fine. And so on. 

 

Vaccination is somewhat unique. Because the action in any other context would be labelled a criminal act (injecting a foreign substance into my/your body), we have come to rely on an opt in approach. That in turn depends on the decision being even more informed than the decision about whether or not to wear a seat belt. Part of the strategy is normal pediatric care--immunizations are scheduled and aligned with another public service, namely school attendance.

 

In the adult world, immunizations are left optional for a variety of reasons. Autonomy is deemed a higher priority than the public good. Even Medicare, which is a federal program, gets about a 50% vaccination rate for all beneficiaries each year for the annual influenza vaccine. There are ongoing studies that model potential lives saved is the vaccination rate would rise from 50->higher->100% among Medicare beneficiaries. 

 

COVID is a much bigger deal than influenza. The case fatality rate continues to be estimated as ten-fold higher by people whose credentials go beyond Facebook membership. The transmissibility is at least as high as influenza, and again most experts believe it is much higher. 

 

As professionals who work at the intersection of public health and critical care, we do indeed wonder at--read "are mystified by"--by individuals who decline to be vaccinated absent a clear medical contraindication. While you are correct that the choice to (not) be vaccinated somehow reflects a personal decision scheme, those decision schemes often seem irrational. We have heard a variety of statements along the lines of "the preservative causes autism" (influenza vaccines can be had preservative-free); "I know three people who were paralyzed by the vaccine" (really? please share their names); "the vaccine gave me the flu the last time I got it" (these are killed virus or component molecules); "it's too expensive" (it's free with every health plan we know, and the out of pocket cost is about $35 if you pay full freight at the CVS); "Bill Gates is implanting microchips" (I won't dignify that with a response, but we have heard this excuse more than once)  and so on. Mostly, it's people not wanting the temporary discomfort of the vaccination event.   As for the potential that a virus might cause harm, in thse exceedingly rare instances, there is a federal no-fault compensation program, see https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

 

Yes , we are vaccinated against pneumococcus, zoster, hepatitis B, annual influenza, Td, and we did indeed have measles as kids and have the titers to prove it. If we were age-allowable, we would have taken the HPV vaccine (we are over 45...if you are 45 or younger, look into it)  We will participate in COVID vaccine trials if allowed, and will line up for the vaccine if we are either not allowed into the trials or we are later told that we did not convert (likely the result of getting the placebo). In our view, with the exception of Td (tetanus is not a highly transmissible disease) our decisions are as much for the common good as they are a personal good. 

 

In our opinion, the public good is vastly more important than the personal benefit; for this reason, we advise, endorse, and promote universal vaccination plans with opt outs limited to medical or religious exemptions. We know others will disagree. We hope they will state their case without resorting to the autonomy ("I just don't want to") or civil liberty ("The Constitution says I don't have to do this") argument. Or, for that matter, the absurd Bill-Gates-is-implanting-microchips comment. 

I was right with you until you the part about COVID-19 being "... a much bigger deal than annual influenza." 

 

Influenza has killed tens of millions of people globally. The so-called "Spanish" strain was the deadliest pandemic in recorded human history; estimated to have killed more than 50 million people worldwide (this, at a time when the entire global population was a fraction of what it is today.)  It killed more people, by far, than the bubonic plague, also known as the "Black Death", something so catastrophic it left an indelible mark on western civilization that we still refer to it some seven hundred years later.

 

Influenza, even in its so-called "less severe" form, kills many hundreds of thousands of people globally every year. The National Institute of Health estimates between 300,000 and 640,000 die annually from influenza, and influenza-related, illnesses. Note: Those deaths are occurring WITH the presence of an annual flu vaccination program. Read that last sentence again.

 

COVID-19, in contrast, has killed an estimated 500,000 people globally--significantly less than a "bad year" for annual influenza, and it doesn't even register in a comparison to the Spanish flu pandemic.

 

True, COVID-19 appears to be easier to transmit from human-to-human contact than is influenza. However, this does not equate to a higher rate of mortality. In fact, current statistical analysis points in the opposite direction. In terms of the general population, the CDC's own statistics overwhelmingly indicate COVID-19 is far less deadly than originally thought. Within the US, the CDC estimates there are millions of COVID-19 cases that have gone undetected because the carriers were either asymptomatic or only mildly so. The mortality rate is remarkably low for younger, healthier people. However, the disease is particularly severe on those people over age 65 in the presence of at least one morbidity factor.

 

COVID-19 is a serious disease and rightfully deserves our attention. However, the original intent of the public health policy promoted by government health care officials was to "flatten the curve". Clearly, that mission has been accomplished. Unfortunately, the entire COVID-19 public discourse has taken on political "us versus them" overtones and the policies of various states and agencies have morphed into things that appear more as "political statements" than as sound public health actions derived from science.

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

3 hours ago, AndrewandAnn said:

I was right with you until you the part about COVID-19 being "... a much bigger deal than annual influenza." 

 

Influenza has killed tens of millions of people globally. The so-called "Spanish" strain was the deadliest pandemic in recorded human history; estimated to have killed more than 50 million people worldwide (this, at a time when the entire global population was a fraction of what it is today.)  It killed more people, by far, than the bubonic plague, also known as the "Black Death", something so catastrophic it left an indelible mark on western civilization that we still refer to it some seven hundred years later.

 

Influenza, even in its so-called "less severe" form, kills many hundreds of thousands of people globally every year. The National Institute of Health estimates between 300,000 and 640,000 die annually from influenza, and influenza-related, illnesses. Note: Those deaths are occurring WITH the presence of an annual flu vaccination program. Read that last sentence again.

 

COVID-19, in contrast, has killed an estimated 500,000 people globally--significantly less than a "bad year" for annual influenza, and it doesn't even register in a comparison to the Spanish flu pandemic.

 

True, COVID-19 appears to be easier to transmit from human-to-human contact than is influenza. However, this does not equate to a higher rate of mortality. In fact, current statistical analysis points in the opposite direction. In terms of the general population, the CDC's own statistics overwhelmingly indicate COVID-19 is far less deadly than originally thought. Within the US, the CDC estimates there are millions of COVID-19 cases that have gone undetected because the carriers were either asymptomatic or only mildly so. The mortality rate is remarkably low for younger, healthier people. However, the disease is particularly severe on those people over age 65 in the presence of at least one morbidity factor.

 

COVID-19 is a serious disease and rightfully deserves our attention. However, the original intent of the public health policy promoted by government health care officials was to "flatten the curve". Clearly, that mission has been accomplished. Unfortunately, the entire COVID-19 public discourse has taken on political "us versus them" overtones and the policies of various states and agencies have morphed into things that appear more as "political statements" than as sound public health actions derived from science.

We will respectfully disagree. We live in the Atlanta area. There is nary an ICU bed to be had, the hospitals are on diversion. It was not this way in 2009-2010 with H1N1. It was not this way in 2017-2018 with H3N2. The impact on the healthcare system is substantially worse, even with efforts to "flatten the curve" and thereby distribute the pathogen-related admissions over time. 

[njbm 2,730]

I am not a doctor or a scientist, but it does not appear that the curve has flattened in most states. It is spreading like wildfire in AZ, CA, TX, FL and GA. The United States’ cases and deaths dwarf other countries. We have 4% of world population and 25% of the cases and deaths. There is a big f’ing problem. 
 

Here are reactions that baffle me:

1. I don’t want a vaccination if it is developed;

2. Covid 19 is not a big deal;

3. I don’t want to wear a mask;

4. I will go where I want and see who I want when I want to. 

It seems that the virus is smarter and more patient than the American public. 

[AndrewandAnn 359]

3 hours ago, Fundamental Law said:

We will respectfully disagree. We live in the Atlanta area. There is nary an ICU bed to be had, the hospitals are on diversion. It was not this way in 2009-2010 with H1N1. It was not this way in 2017-2018 with H3N2. The impact on the healthcare system is substantially worse, even with efforts to "flatten the curve" and thereby distribute the pathogen-related admissions over time. 

I appreciate your respectful tone; a genuine rarity in today's world, it seems. And I trust you appreciate mine.

 

Science allows us to form opinions around facts and based upon broad, collective evidence and the Scientific Method. While your personal anecdotal experiences may conflict with the larger scientific body of evidence, it does not nullify the logical conclusions. The dire projections about COVID-19 never materialized, in any city, even under oftentimes grossly incompetent/borderline criminal disease mitigation practices and mis-management (e.g., the governor of New York's decision to pile known COVID-19 patients into nursing homes with other healthy residents.)

 

Representatives of the CDC and other governmental agencies originally estimated several million Americans would die from COVID-19. In reality, a fraction of that number have perished. If that is not a "flattening of the curve", I have no idea how else one would characterize it. That can lead us to only one conclusion: The disease mitigation efforts, in spite of the obvious shortcomings and missteps, were remarkably successful at accomplishing their intended purpose.

 

And, even the current administration's biggest critics had to recently swallow large helpings of crow when it was scientifically demonstrated in a study involving more than 2,500 patients that hydroxychloroquine is effective at treating COVID-19. According to the major health care organization that administered the study, patients given the drug were "... much less likely to die" according to an article appearing on CNN.com

 

The study indicates the rate of death dropped by roughly 50%. It makes me wonder, How many more lives could have been saved if hydroxychloroquine would have been administered to those not involved in the study? Most unfortunately, I fear many in the health care field placed politics far ahead of treating the sick.

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

13 hours ago, AndrewandAnn said:

I appreciate your respectful tone; a genuine rarity in today's world, it seems. And I trust you appreciate mine.

 

Science allows us to form opinions around facts and based upon broad, collective evidence and the Scientific Method. While your personal anecdotal experiences may conflict with the larger scientific body of evidence, it does not nullify the logical conclusions. The dire projections about COVID-19 never materialized, in any city, even under oftentimes grossly incompetent/borderline criminal disease mitigation practices and mis-management (e.g., the governor of New York's decision to pile known COVID-19 patients into nursing homes with other healthy residents.)

 

Representatives of the CDC and other governmental agencies originally estimated several million Americans would die from COVID-19. In reality, a fraction of that number have perished. If that is not a "flattening of the curve", I have no idea how else one would characterize it. That can lead us to only one conclusion: The disease mitigation efforts, in spite of the obvious shortcomings and missteps, were remarkably successful at accomplishing their intended purpose.

 

And, even the current administration's biggest critics had to recently swallow large helpings of crow when it was scientifically demonstrated in a study involving more than 2,500 patients that hydroxychloroquine is effective at treating COVID-19. According to the major health care organization that administered the study, patients given the drug were "... much less likely to die" according to an article appearing on CNN.com

 

The study indicates the rate of death dropped by roughly 50%. It makes me wonder, How many more lives could have been saved if hydroxychloroquine would have been administered to those not involved in the study? Most unfortunately, I fear many in the health care field placed politics far ahead of treating the sick.

Thanks for you gracious remark. We'll confine our response to the Henry Ford trial report. Unlike a randomized controlled prospective trial, the Ford trial was a lookback (retrospective trial). The problem with that approach is that it doesn't always effectively deal with confounders. For example, a very large fraction of the patients who received HCQ also received a steroid (dexamethasone) that has been shown to improve outcomes. So it becomes problematic to separate the effect of the HCQ from that of dexamethasone. See Table 1 for the starting point. Now the authors tried to get around this by a procedure called "propensity matching", but that's a notoriously unreliable strategy. They ended up with only 190 (!)  "matchable patients" who received HCQ (and 84/190 were given the dexamethasone), so the "2,500" number is wildly misleading. They did the best they could with the data they had; this is one reason why the trial was not reported in a first-tier (or for that matter, in a second-tier) journal.  Again, we are not criticizing the effort or the report; we are just saying that people who are in this area professionally are trying to put the appropriate weight on both the data and the interpretation. Our read of the various trials is aligned with the read and action of the FDA--HCQ should not be administered outside of a prospective randomized controlled trial at this point. 

FORD_HCQ.pdf

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

See also https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 for the press release around the Solidarity trial, which is a hospitalized patient trial. Please see also https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments for further information about that prospective, randomized trial.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

20 hours ago, Fundamental Law said:

Thanks for you gracious remark. We'll confine our response to the Henry Ford trial report. Unlike a randomized controlled prospective trial, the Ford trial was a lookback (retrospective trial). The problem with that approach is that it doesn't always effectively deal with confounders. For example, a very large fraction of the patients who received HCQ also received a steroid (dexamethasone) that has been shown to improve outcomes. So it becomes problematic to separate the effect of the HCQ from that of dexamethasone. See Table 1 for the starting point. Now the authors tried to get around this by a procedure called "propensity matching", but that's a notoriously unreliable strategy. They ended up with only 190 (!)  "matchable patients" who received HCQ (and 84/190 were given the dexamethasone), so the "2,500" number is wildly misleading. They did the best they could with the data they had; this is one reason why the trial was not reported in a first-tier (or for that matter, in a second-tier) journal.  Again, we are not criticizing the effort or the report; we are just saying that people who are in this area professionally are trying to put the appropriate weight on both the data and the interpretation. Our read of the various trials is aligned with the read and action of the FDA--HCQ should not be administered outside of a prospective randomized controlled trial at this point. 

FORD_HCQ.pdf 2.53 MB · 1 download

The study was published in the peer-reviewed, open access International Journal of Infectious Disease produced by the International Society for Infectious Disease, an organization that represents more than 90,000 infectious disease specialists from 155 countries around the globe. 

 

The fact remains the data from this study, the largest of its kind thus far, indicates hydroxychloroquine is demonstrated to be remarkably effective when taken either by itself, or part of a multi-pronged, treatment regime. In other words, the study saw improvements in patient outcomes across virtually the entire patient base, regardless of the combination of treatments.

 

As the authors of the study made clear, this was not intended to end the discussion around the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. But rather to serve as a beginning.

 

Also, the success of this study logically indicates previous efforts to thwart the use of hydroxychloroquine undoubtedly lead to some unnecessary deaths. I am reminded of the governor of Michigan's written threat that "administrative action" would be levied against any doctor whom prescribed "experimental" (clearly aimed at hydroxychloroquine) drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. Of the more than 6,200 dead COVID-19 patients in Michigan, I wonder how many of them would have survived had their medical doctors been free to prescribe hydroxychloroquine? 

[Fundamental Law 2,831]

Here is the editorial that accompanied publication of the Henry Ford study. This comes from the experts who peer-reviewed the study. Please read the section on strengths and limitations, and further the conclusion: "It is a failing of healthcare systems and research infrastructure that the protocolization of unproven therapies is exponentially easier to execute than participation in pragmatic randomized controlled trials. Moving forward, we encourage academic centers to commit to participating in the necessary
Journal clinical trials that will establish high quality evidence for safe and effective therapies in the shortest possible time."

 

Again, we are strongly supportive of properly conducted RCTs. We cannot, however, support the widespread use of a drug with known side effects; where properly controlled trials have so far not shown a benefit; and where there is both opportunity and cause to operate properly controlled trials. To the extent that the Ford trial promotes equipoise, we strongly applaud. To the extent that people are trying to use the study to advocate for off-label use of the drug, we say: read the study, read the editorial, read the other studies and their editorials, and then (and only then) make an informed decision. 

editorialFord.pdf

[adamgunn 1,457]

Okay, guys, I'm getting really bored with this conversation. I'm not putting anyone down, just sayin . . .

 

In this overly politicized atmosphere, some people are going to try to research every piece of scientific data out there, realizing that the science on this issue is constantly migrating as the scientists get more and more data and try to make sense of it.

 

Other people, perhaps looking at the confusion in the scientific community, or just being people who don't trust science, are going to ballyhoo it. 

 

The former are going to be cautious, the latter are not going to wear face masks and gather in groups.

 

This is the way it is right now, it's the way it's going to be for awhile.

 

I get my data from various sites that I trust. I don't need a constant ongoing argument about it on a site that's meant to be about swinging. I'm bored with the conversation.