Coronavirus

OUBubba said:
My polling place is about a 15 minute drive all on un-lined county line roads.
Click to expand...

For me to vote, I have to drive to a military base that is 30 minutes away. I have to complete the ballot and then bring it back to that base to vote. It's a 2-hour time commitment just in travel.
 
Phil Elliott said:
It's not about whether voting by mail can be done correctly, it's the loss of the chain of custody of the ballots that leaves it so open to fraud. That doesn't mean that everyone who votes by mail is trying to pull one over.
Click to expand...
So point me to the results of studies from Colorado or Oregon that show such significant voter fraud.
 
We have to admit it is harder to validate by mail than in person. That is why even online learning courses make sure they can watch the student take the test via web cam or some other kind of security.

Voting should be at least as safe as taking an online history course. But if they did that Democrats would gripe that old people wouldn't get to vote because they don't know how to use computers.

They would be right. But to me, show me a rational way to verify identity and I am okay with it. Don't tell me fraud won't happen. Just show me your validation system and we will go from there.
 
I'll go ahead and ask this question that others have asked before. Is corona now officially not important? Can we just all agree we need fully attended football in a couple of months without these stupid masks?
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
I'll go ahead and ask this question that others have asked before. Is corona now officially not important? Can we just all agree we need fully attended football in a couple of months without these stupid masks?
Click to expand...

Being over 70 and having COPD it's important to me. My company may recall me back to the main office as early as next week. When that happens, I'll make a decision as to whether I want to chance it or just retire if they won't let me continue to work from home.
 
Clean said:
Being over 70 and having COPD it's important to me. My company may recall me back to the main office as early as next week. When that happens, I'll make a decision as to whether I want to chance it or just retire if they won't let me continue to work from home.
Click to expand...
Any decent company should let you work from home.
 
NJlonghorn said:
If mainstream opinion correlated even remotely with what you just said, I'd be singing a different tune. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I have heard isolated statements from doctors that give a VERY toned down version of what you say. And I've heard statements from even more doctors saying it is not nearly that effective.
Click to expand...
NJ
I realize I am jumping in late here. You generally make well-reasoned points in debate, but your faith in the medical community is certainly a weakness in your argument. It is quite apparent that the mainstream medical community, the CDC, HHS, and their political allies are bought and sold (if not in actuality then at least in the marketplace of ideas) by big pharma. Any potential treatments that are naturally occurring or easily produced and difficult to patent or monetize at a high rate are immediately vilified and undermined by the powers that be. This is where you get pushback from people discerning and knowledgeable enough to know this...it is not necessarily political. It is a pushback against something patently corrupt. I do not mean to suggest all in the mainstream medical community and the related bureaucratic arms are corrupt or owned by pharma. On the contrary....many who aren't are just willfully ignorant, complicit, or have so bought into their reliance on what is considered accepted science that they quickly dismiss anything they weren't told to "think".
 
An "adult-content model??" Did Stormy Daniels work for this company?

And they wonder why people are suspicious of self-proclaimed experts.
 
Monahorns said:
Bad news for LongestHorn, that study he keeps throwing out showing hydroxychloroquine doesn't work against COVID is worthless. Par for the course.

Coronavirus & Hydroxychloroquine -- About That Scary Study | National Review
Click to expand...
Hydroxychloroquine is no better than a placebo in preventing infection of the coronavirus, according to results published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is considered the "gold standard" in science, looked at 821 people in the United States and Canada who had been exposed to the coronavirus.
 
LongestHorn said:
Hydroxychloroquine is no better than a placebo in preventing infection of the coronavirus, according to results published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is considered the "gold standard" in science, looked at 821 people in the United States and Canada who had been exposed to the coronavirus.
Click to expand...

I've learned that the press can't be trusted, science can't be trusted, and now medicine can't be trusted.

Too many people are using their work to progress their political agendas. When you take away the tools of the enemy, they have nothing to influence you.
 
LongestHorn said:
Hydroxychloroquine is no better than a placebo in preventing infection of the coronavirus, according to results published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is considered the "gold standard" in science, looked at 821 people in the United States and Canada who had been exposed to the coronavirus.
Click to expand...

Did you read this part? Another half-assed study.
"This trial has many limitations, acknowledged by the investigators. The trial methods did not allow consistent proof of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or consistent laboratory confirmation that the symptom complex that was reported represented a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Indeed, the specificity of participant-reported Covid-19 symptoms is low,6 so it is hard to be certain how many participants in the trial actually had Covid-19. Adherence to the interventions could not be monitored, and participants reported less-than-perfect adherence, more notably in the group receiving hydroxychloroquine. In addition, those enrolled in the trial were younger (median age, 40 years) and had fewer coexisting conditions than persons in whom severe Covid-19 is most likely to develop,7 so enrollment of higher-risk participants might have yielded a different result."
 
LongestHorn said:
Hydroxychloroquine is no better than a placebo in preventing infection of the coronavirus, according to results published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study, the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is considered the "gold standard" in science, looked at 821 people in the United States and Canada who had been exposed to the coronavirus.
Click to expand...
You clearly did not READ. Or if you DID, you chose or were unable to COMPREHEND.

In the middle of the article, an entire paragraph:
This trial has many limitations, acknowledged by the investigators. The trial methods did not allow consistent proof of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or consistent laboratory confirmation that the symptom complex that was reported represented a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Indeed, the specificity of participant-reported Covid-19 symptoms is low,6 so it is hard to be certain how many participants in the trial actually had Covid-19. Adherence to the interventions could not be monitored, and participants reported less-than-perfect adherence, more notably in the group receiving hydroxychloroquine. In addition, those enrolled in the trial were younger (median age, 40 years) and had fewer coexisting conditions than persons in whom severe Covid-19 is most likely to develop,7 so enrollment of higher-risk participants might have yielded a different result.
Click to expand...

So, in other words...GFY.
 
Horn6721 said:
Garmel
LH apparently never reads the links he posts. All he looks for is a headline that looks like a gotcha for him.
Click to expand...

Yep. I do find it disturbing that these medical journals are publishing studies that have holes in them like this. They know most people are morons like LH and will go only by the headline. They are deliberately trying to turn public opinion against HCQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top