Jump to content

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?


Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
    • Partially vaccinated
    • Not Vaccinated
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
    • Fear of needles
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
    • Vaccine not available where I live
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

"Wisdom of the crowds" - is the principle behind betting sites giving odds on various events such as f.ex. presidential elections etc. Often such can be in opposition to "expert opinion" and it's fascinating when the "wisdom of the crowds" proves to be the correct bet.

The other way this is referenced in real life is "put your money where you mouth is", i.e. your willingness to bet something valuable is a more accurate reflection of your true feelings/opinions compared to mere assertions without the bet.

In life we have to operate - most of the time - on insufficient information, and so how we actually act is a reflection of our innermost convictions. There is no proof that CR works in humans, that this supplement or that health practice is a net benefit - yet we all pick and choose what we'll involve ourselves in, despite having no "proof" most of the time.

What do you believe about the danger of COVID-19, inherently itself or compared to the flu? Place your bets. What you do, reflects what you believe most deeply.

Personally I don't pretend to know how the danger of COVID-19 compares to any other infectious disease. Nonetheless, I take measures not to catch it. Greater measures than I take with the flu. I read about the long term effects of COVID-19 sickness, neurological and other challenges even in highly fit and young athletes, and well, what can I make of it? I place my bets. My bet is to try to avoid it as much as possible and take all precautionary measures. That's my bet, but may not be yours. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Gordo said:

I hadn't heard the news that the second wave was over already 😉

Maybe premature Covid-icide of many sick elderly leads to them not dying later.

Edited by AlPater
Link to comment
Share on other sites


upper respiratory infections association with exercise. Just like most everything it’s a j curve. Excessive exercise being a major risk factor. 45-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise being the most Effective in reducing risks. May be relevant wrt COVID-19 I’d be very surprised if it was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MedXpress has an article that seeks to explain why some people still downplay the seriousness of the current pandemic.  (Personal note:  My daughter is a nurse at a major hospital.  The tragedies within young families she described certainly made me realize this isn’t your grandfather’s flu.)   I realize that we should not be making decisions based on anecdotes, but if I see an avalanche of anecdotes hurtling down towards me, I’m going to try to step aside.

Don't know any COVID-19 patients who've died or been in the hospital? That may explain a lot

Seven months into the pandemic, it's no secret that plenty of people still downplay the risks of COVID-19, scoffing at mask-wearing and social distancing.

 Politics clearly feeds that mind-set, as suggested by a new Pew Research Center survey in which Republicans were more likely to say the crisis was overblown. Others may resist restrictions - capacity limits in restaurants, say - because their livelihoods are at stake. 

Despite more than 200,000 deaths and 400,000 hospitalizations in the United States, an Inquirer analysis suggests that in much of the country, the typical person knows no one in either of those categories.

 do we really need to know someone who is gravely ill in order to practice safe behavior? - but psychologists say it makes sense. Human beings are notoriously poor at evaluating risk, particularly when the threat in question is more abstract, or when numbers are involved.

research suggests that a failure to embrace COVID-19 restrictions may be fueled by a lack of empathy, in the same way that someone in rural Pennsylvania may not view urban gun violence as an urgent problem, or that those without military family members may give less thought to the ongoing toll of combat.

So far in the United States, one in roughly 800 people has been hospitalized, meaning the chance that a given person has not been hospitalized is 799 out of 800 (99.9%)  … the average American knows about 600 people … there is about a 50-50 chance that the "average" person does not know someone who was hospitalized with COVID-19.

Same goes for deaths. One in about 1,600 Americans has died of COVID-19, leaving 1,599 of 1,600 that have not. Take 1,599/1,600 raised to the 600th power, and you find the typical person has greater than a two-thirds chance of not knowing someone who died of the disease.

a Pew survey in August, in which four in 10 Americans said they knew someone who had been hospitalized or died as a result of having COVID-19. In a reminder that the disease has hit harder in communities of color, 57% of Black Americans said they knew someone who h

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know what the end game is. I have always been extrememly sceptical of a vaccine for a plethora of reasons - first and foremost, because it seems like whatever immunity you acquire from having gone through COVID-19 is very short lived, ranging from 0-3 months to 11 months depending on what study you read. I've even seen articles about folks who had the virus, recovered, and then got re-infected and did WORSE the second time around... not good! Second, it seems it'll suffer from all the faults of fast evolving viruses like the flu, where you will need to keep devoloping new vaccines as the strains evolve. Third, nobody knows how effective the vaccine will be even if it is effective at all - a 20% effectivenss rate is going to be underwhelming. Fourth, it seems the approaches so far have a lot of pretty unacceptable side effects. And so on. Plus, as I've always maintained, the media is overoptimistic about how fast any vaccine will be brought to market at all - not to mention the number of hucksters and frauds we'll have to wade through.

This is all to say that we are not going to conquer this virus like the polio or the like through a vaccine. Herd immunity seems to be a mirage. A consensus is slowly developing that Sweden's approach is a bust.

That leaves medication to deal with the disease - oh boy. The amount of controversy and the number of hucksters and frauds and snakeoil is going to make this a tough sale as a global solution. Not to mention that this disease seems extremely broad in the effects it has and whom it strikes - every patient seems to have their own disease. It'll be very hard to assure people that we have the medications to deal with this.

So what to do? Avoid getting infected as much as possible, I suppose. That means masks and social distancing. But for how long? Europe seems a pretty discouraging object lesson what with the second wave and bizarre patterns like the Czech Republic having suddenly more victims than Germany at a fraction of the population.

What is to be done? It's not sustainable to have unemployment at these levels. And the moment all the stimulus checks are seen to be definitively ending, you'll have mass bankruptcies and businesses that hung on by their fingernails collapse with no hope in sight. That will have knock-on effects on the rest of the economy. And then what are you going to do as more and more people are out of work and there is no money to support them, and nobody is willing to finance more debt? You can't just keep printing money - and there's a limit to buying your own debt, and without international capital willing to finance this - and China is dropping out of the U.S. treasuries market - what happens next? You'll finally get your hyperinflation, and that's the end, hello 1920's Germany.

The economy has already sustained damage that'll be long term and will take decades to recover from. How much longer do you expect to keep this up? We got a few more months with the upcoming election and Jan 20, but then what? People are going to go crazy if things don't start moving in a good direction. So again, the question is what is the end game here? More of the same for the indefinite future? Not sustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the start of this pandemic, Sweden took a different approach, and everyone (including myself) wondered how that would turn out. The pandemic is (obviously) not over yet, but increasingly, it seems a consensus if forming that ultimately Sweden's approach has been a failure. Here is an article that pulls together the case for "failure" - again, it ain't over until it's over, but it's hard to see how Sweden can pull out a win from this all things considered:

The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2020 at 3:54 PM, TomBAvoider said:

That leaves medication to deal with the disease

I think pursuing healthful lifestyle reducing obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc could be effective as few without multiple morbidities die.  I've seen that message a lot in places attracting people who already have that focus.  But not so much in mainstream media which promotes the pharma approach.

I could be misjudging but I feel more healthy and resilient than I have in years and have no fear for myself or my wife.  Our concern is for family and friends with significant risk factors.  I wish we could influence more to improve their health but there is so much confusion and apathy to overcome.  Even here where where we share goals of longevity and health span we have significantly divergent views of what is optimal or sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF, and IF we can base our reasonings on the following graph, considering that Sweden has the same mortality ratio of Italy, considering that Italy locked down totally for 2-3 months and had huge economic losses, considering that Sweden did not lock down and avoided an economic collapse, I'd say Sweden has been overall eminently successful.

Of course, the Swedish model may not be applicable to other countries.

Now we'll have to see what happens with the second wave, many countries are already practicing partial lockdowns, total in outbreak areas. In Italy cases are increasing as well, although deaths and IC cases are still low.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Todd Allen said:
  On 10/14/2020 at 2:54 PM, TomBAvoider said:

That leaves medication to deal with the disease

Not much left except steroids like dexamethasone.

Remdesivir has little effect on hospital stay or mortality in COVID-19 patients, WHO study finds
Antiviral medication was one of the drugs used to treat U.S. President Donald Trump's coronavirus infection
Thomson Reuters · Posted: Oct 16, 2020
Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19; interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results
WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Hongchao Pan, Richard Peto, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Marissa Alejandria, Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, Cesar Hernandez Garcia, Marie Paule Kieny, Reza Malekzadeh, Srinivas Murthy, Marie-Pierre Preziosi, Srinath Reddy, Mirta Roses, Vasee Sathiyamoorthy, John-Arne Rottingen, Soumya Swaminathan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817

WHO expert groups recommended mortality trials in hospitalized COVID-19 of four re-purposed antiviral drugs.

METHODS Study drugs were Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir (fixed-dose combination with Ritonavir) and Interferon-β1a (mainly subcutaneous; initially with Lopinavir, later not). COVID-19 inpatients were randomized equally between whichever study drugs were locally available and open control (up to 5 options: 4 active and local standard-of-care). The intent-to-treat primary analyses are of in-hospital mortality in the 4 pairwise comparisons of each study drug vs its controls (concurrently allocated the same management without that drug, despite availability). Kaplan-Meier 28-day risks are unstratified; log-rank death rate ratios (RRs) are stratified for age and ventilation at entry.

RESULTS In 405 hospitals in 30 countries 11,266 adults were randomized, with 2750 allocated Remdesivir, 954 Hydroxychloroquine, 1411 Lopinavir, 651 Interferon plus Lopinavir, 1412 only Interferon, and 4088 no study drug. Compliance was 94-96% midway through treatment, with 2-6% crossover. 1253 deaths were reported (at median day 8, IQR 4-14). Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 12% (39% if already ventilated at randomization, 10% otherwise). Death rate ratios (with 95% CIs and numbers dead/randomized, each drug vs its control) were: Remdesivir RR=0.95 (0.81-1.11, p=0.50; 301/2743 active vs 303/2708 control), Hydroxychloroquine RR=1.19 (0.89-1.59, p=0.23; 104/947 vs 84/906), Lopinavir RR=1.00 (0.79-1.25, p=0.97; 148/1399 vs 146/1372) and Interferon RR=1.16 (0.96-1.39, p=0.11; 243/2050 vs 216/2050). No study drug definitely reduced mortality (in unventilated patients or any other subgroup of entry characteristics), initiation of ventilation or hospitalisation duration.

CONCLUSIONS These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay. The mortality findings contain most of the randomized evidence on Remdesivir and Interferon, and are consistent with meta-analyses of mortality in all major trials.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe “cold exposure” is good for you.  Previous infection with other types of coronaviruses may lessen severity of COVID-19

Being previously infected with a coronaviruses that cause the "common cold" may decrease the severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infections

the study also demonstrates that the immunity built up from previous non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections does not prevent individuals from getting COVID-19

 After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, and diabetes mellitus diagnosis, COVID-19 hospitalized patients who had a previous positive CRP-PCR test result for a coronoavirus had significantly lower odds of being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and lower trending odds of requiring mechanical ventilation during COVID.

Another interesting finding, the authors note, is that immunity may prevent disease (COVID-19) in ways that are different from preventing infection by SARS-CoV-2. This is demonstrated by the fact that the patient groups had similar likelihoods of infection but differing likelihoods of ending up in the ICU or dying.

People are routinely infected with coronaviruses that are different from SARS-CoV-2, and these study results could help identify patients at lower and greater risk of developing complications after being infected with SARS-CoV-2,

We hope that this study can be the springboard for identifying the types of immune responses for not necessarily preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection but rather limiting the damage from COVID-19.


An alternative view about exposure was expressed here.  What COVID-19 Reinfection Means for Vaccines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

I think pursuing healthful lifestyle reducing obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc could be effective as few without multiple morbidities die.  I've seen that message a lot in places attracting people who already have that focus.  But not so much in mainstream media which promotes the pharma approach.

I could be misjudging but I feel more healthy and resilient than I have in years and have no fear for myself or my wife.  Our concern is for family and friends with significant risk factors.  I wish we could influence more to improve their health but there is so much confusion and apathy to overcome.  Even here where where we share goals of longevity and health span we have significantly divergent views of what is optimal or sufficient.

We know obesity raises risk in men by about 2.5 and Evidence points to low vitamin d doubling risk and low zinc levels also doubling risk. If we did some decent clinical trials with vitamin d and zinc we might see something quite significant based on some interesting associations. These don’t happen because there’s no money behind it


Link to comment
Share on other sites



beginning to think we need a serious thread on this stuff. It may seriously be a key anti aging substance that diminishes with aging, but that can be increased with diet but it’s a bit complicated.

Edited by Mike41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?


It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses.



[...] Sweden’s light touch strategy against the virus resulting in much scrutiny and scepticism.26 The epidemic in Sweden does seem to be declining, Buggert said in August.

We have much fewer cases right now. We have around 50 people hospitalised with covid-19 in a city of two million people.” At the peak of the epidemic there were thousands of cases. Something must have happened, said Buggert, particularly considering that social distancing was “always poorly followed, and it’s only become worse.”

Understanding this “something” is a core question for Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford University epidemiologist who developed a way to calculate herd immunity thresholds that incorporates a variable for pre-existing innate resistance and cross protection.24 Her group argues that herd immunity thresholds “may be greatly reduced if a fraction of the population is unable to transmit the virus.”

“The conventional wisdom is that lockdown occurred as the epidemic curve was rising,” Gupta explained. “So once you remove lockdown that curve should continue to rise.” But that is not happening in places like New York, London, and Stockholm. The question is why. 

“If it were the case that in London the disease hadn’t disseminated too widely, and only 15% have experienced the virus [as serology tests indicate] . . . under those circumstances, if you lift lockdown, you should see an immediate and commensurate increase in cases, as we have observed in many other settings,” Gupta told The BMJ, “But that hasn’t happened. That is just a fact. The question is why.”

Possible answers are many, she says. One is that [...]


Edited by Sibiriak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...