Imgflip Logo Icon

Covid was just an opening act. Some viruses are even deadlier.

Covid was just an opening act.  Some viruses are even deadlier. | image tagged in memes,covid,virus supporter | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
128 views 1 upvote Made by anonymous 1 year ago in politics
68 Comments
3 ups, 1y,
2 replies
Unleash the monkey pox!
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Monkey pox is NO JOKE
They are offering in home tests just like Covid @ no cost

imgflip.com/gif/6h027n
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
That goes against CDC guidance.

https://www.cdc.gov/locs/php/messages/2024/2024-08-27-recommendations-for-mpox-specimen-testing.html

https://www.fda.gov/media/177286/download
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
I do not trust the CDC
imgflip.com/gif/8sy464
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
you should though. many of their scientists are very well trained. they won't make the right decision every time, but that is very hard to do.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
"i didn't decide you were wrong based on your source".: I was speaking of the source being called likely wrong. They provided citation so you don't have to take their word on it.

Covid is airborne: I provided a source describing what airborne means. It isn't just droplets, but the aerosolized smaller particle that travel farther, stay in the air longer, and can slip through masks

Social distancing: That refers to staying 6 feet apart. You talked about isolation and wrongly called it social distancing. I made that clear.

"and immunization was hailed as a way to "help stop" the spread of covid (which it does), not to stop it." You remember when I talked about natural immunity and it being left out of this? And no, it doesn't help stop the spread either.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-30992100768-4/fulltext#:~:text=This%20study%20showed%20that%20the,the%20impact%20among%20unvaccinated%20people.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
They're a political organization so I'd double check their claims on stuff that crosses over into politics. They got a lot of COVID stuff wrong first due to lack of info because COVID was an unknown, and then didn't change due to politics when the initial guesses where proved wrong.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
what errors didn't they correct, and how do you know it was politically motivated?
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
Masks don't help much because COVID is airborn, unlike the flu. It was based a guess on how it might be spread before it was known. The studies should effectiveness on the number they measured went from 11% to 10% when masked Even after that the number where hidden from review while claiming an out of context 10% reduction.

Social distancing doesn't work well due to COVID being airborn and remaining so for hours. Despite this, it kept being pushed after being known.

Immunizations do not stop the spread of COVID, as long as you get sick, you can spread a disease. They didn't work well preventing it either due to rapid mutation and effectiveness fell off rapidly. Natural immunity had the definition changed to push vaccines.

There is no scientific based not to change the guildlines to match new information. In fact this goes against science to not change guildlines. The most likely answer to why it was not done is politics.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
my dear friend, and i do count you among my one hundred million dearest friends, you simply must stop believing everything the Republicans tell you. that press release came from a Republican-majority House committee. it's in their interest to push a pro-Trump/anti-Dem/anti-CDC/anti-NIH narrative. why do you suggest the CDC to be untrustworthy for 'most likely' political motives when the Republicans certainly have them?

masks do help and precisely because Covid spreads by coughing, sneezing, and talking, in the same way that the flu does. they reduce the ability of unknowingly infected persons from spreading virus-bearing droplets efficiently. i don't find your 11 to 10% study, but i'll look at it if you have the reference. even if the effectiveness were only 10%, that would still mean saving many lives.

social distancing does work when infected people self-quarantine. however, if they go out in the world and stand just 6 feet away from others, well yes, that won't work very well.

immunizations were never billed as stopping the spread of Covid. the vaccines build immunity in individuals so that they stand a lower chance of becoming infected, have reduced symtoms if they do become infected, and experience more rapid recovery. for all of these reasons, transmission is also reduced. uninfected people can't transmit it and vaccinated infected people are less contagious than the unvaccinated.

this is mostly common sense, so the CDC is unlikely to change their guidance when NIH and their own data supports it. when there are disagreements between studies as to whether certain precautions should or should not be taken, i'll always err on the side of common sense.
1 up, 1y,
2 replies
Thee where hard to find,
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1030?ijkey=254614ec551dae4b7c675f919866135411e078e2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/how-the-cdc-abandoned-science
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
i like the first article for pointing out that aerosols and droplets aren't mutually exclusive. it's a matter of definition more than a distinct difference in transmission modes. i didn't load the second url into my browser because i don't recognize the core address tabletmag.com
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
yes. the best references are sometimes hard to track down, but well worth it.
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
each of the thing I said are backup by scientific studies. You decided it is wrong because you didn't like the source. I o understand that you could have seen studies that say the opposite, as even proper studies do have chances of being wrong. as for the study, I cannot find it either.

Covid is airborne, not just spread by droplets like the flu. Therefore you need a high quality mask and where it correctly to prevent spread. Regulation didn't cover this and use the flu model. It's the main reason masks didn't do enough to help. And a 1% reduction is not statistically meaningful. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

social distancing : You just agreed that it doesn't work and said it did because something else works.

immunizations: It was hailed as a way to stop covid spread early on. It's listed here, https://www.cdc.gov/museum/pdf/cdcm-pha-stem-lesson-covid-19-vaccination-lesson.pdf
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
i do like your willingness to think things through but you should read more, and more carefully.

i didn't decide you were wrong based on your source. i decided you were probably wrong because the claims are inaccurate and they don't fit with common sense. i regret that you cite a source that you should be skeptical of for its political bias.

Covid is airborne when you sneeze or cough or talk or laugh or shout, you release airborne droplets of vapor that carry the virus, just as with flu. high quality masks were recommended early on (i know because i was especially interested in it for personal reasons), but any mask is better than no mask. would you want a doctor to perform surgery on you with no mask? of course not. doctors sneeze, just like us.

i said that social distancing works in the sense of self quarantine. you read it as 'social distancing doesn't work at all'.

and immunization was hailed as a way to "help stop" the spread of covid (which it does), not to stop it.

you have high potential for analytical thinking, grasshopper, but you must work on improving your attention to details.
0 ups, 1y,
3 replies
You really should look up "airborne" first before posting your confusion about it.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q985
0 ups, 1y
No, really, you need to look it up.

I don't do links still.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
I did look it up, and gave you the evidence. Saying you don't look at presented evidence doesn't make it go away. Try your own search because I'm not going to quote an entire article for you to ignore gain and ask for a source that was already given.

"Why WHO changed the definition of “airborne transmission” in the wake of the pandemic"
0 ups, 1y
It's a word. The only 'evidence' that would pertain to it is a dictionary definition, which is quite unnecessary on my end at this junction since I already know what it means.
0 ups, 1y
I gave the the world health organization's medical definition that describes how the spread actually occurs that was redefined after COVID should he old definition not being adequate. Just because you refuse to look at the facts, doesn't mean they go away.

And if you want the dictionary definition, you're still wrong.
4 ups, 1y,
1 reply
It's called a joke. Monkey pox maybe a fluid contact spread of small pox, but it mainly affects gay men because of how hard is is to spread via casual contact.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
I've checked the room and found no elephant. I know of no such thing, it's basically meme magic at work.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
i work in a large community of PhDs in science who couldn't see the elephant in our room for twenty years. when an outsider showed them hard evidence of the elephant, their bias still wouldn't let most of them see it. nobody had brainwashed them but themselves and our limited understanding of our field. i tell my students that new Nobel Prizes are just lying around on the ground, but they need to put on their Nobel-Prize-vision goggles to see them. the first step to putting on the goggles, to putting aside bias, is to realize that we are indeed very biased. unfortunately, people are so much more willing to analyze bias in others.
2 ups, 1y
Yes, fallibility is a important part of critical thinking. What I believe is true can be proved wrong and I must be willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. Bias is part of this, so is lack of complete information, and flaws in reasoning.
3 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Try not to sprain an arm
with that reach
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Actually a good one!
[deleted]
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
story of my life. people always surprised when i have a good idea. it's weird.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
If you weren't you, you would understand.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
boy, that Thanksgiving spirit of leaving differences behind didn't last long.
1 up, 1y,
7 replies
You mean Trumpsgiving.

I haven't posted anything about Trumpsmas yet, or making Trump Year's resolutions.

Which sounds better;

Happy Trump Year!

~ Or ~

Happy NEW Trump Year!

But I digress.

Are you always this snarky when someone offers you insight into something you said you could not make sense of?

Weird.

All I said was that you are biased when it comes to your own ideas, as is nearly everyone on earth.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
you don't know how objective i am or how objective i think i am, so your own bias makes your statement a very weak guess. but hopefully we can agree that i'm far more objective than you, sir.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
dawg. you're assuming there's no escape. but some people are more committed to being as objective as possible. won't you join us?
0 ups, 1y
Again, your bias filter.

My objectivity says this interaction in which you are desperately struggling to "save face", not disimilar to the lamebarackobama, has become increasingly redundant and a bore.

Take a poll and I think you will find there is no bias in this statement.

The people will agree with me just as they did with electing The People's Hero, The Great Donald J. Trump.
0 ups, 1y
You are viewing your level of objectivity through your own bias lens filter

Meaning, you are not as objective as you think yourself to be.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
lol! i have no reason to save face. i'm just that person who holds out hope longer than they should in trying to salvage the brain of a deluded fellow creature. but i hereby throw in the towel. if you can be saved, it won't be by me.
0 ups, 1y
Your bias filter prevents you from seeing that you are the individual needing saved.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
and it's hardly snarky when you just tried to insult me. or were you just saying that you have trouble relating to my higher plane of consciousness?
0 ups, 1y
No, I did not try to insult you.

Your mind created any insult you felt.

I do not relate to your "plane" nor do I have ambition to do so.

I simply stated that if you weren't you, you would understand why others do not think all of your ideas are great.

Because, and it's ironic I have to explain this to someone on such a high plane as you, by not being you, you would be free from the bias and would see your ideas from an outsiders perspective.

If reality insults you that would explain your embracing of leftist liberal ideology.

Btw, you didn't answer - Happy Trump Year *or* Happy NEW Trump Year?
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
well that's the thing. i only seem biased in the sense that i think most of my ideas are awesome. but is it really bias if most of my ideas actually are awesome?
0 ups, 1y
Again, you speak with bias.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
i only seem biased to you because you're reading me thru your own biases. are you familiar with my many fabulous accomplishments? nah. is your own view of reality warped? you've already admitted that it is. embrace your own argument, buddy.
0 ups, 1y
Exactly my point.

You read yourself through your own biases.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
it's kind of scary really. you're like the me that could have been if i wasn't self-aware. eek.
Show More Comments
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator