sumguy

Supporters
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sumguy


  1. I'm a non-EU immigrant with a freelancer Aufenthaltstitel. Is it possible for me to stop or reduce working, if I have sufficient savings? Or sort of semi-retire? Or do I always have to earn enough to live on from my business, regardless of my savings or investment income?

     

    Since the pandemic, I've lost my main clients, and haven't been earning much. I'd like to make a change in the kind of work I do, but that will take some time. I've been told that I have to earn enough income to secure my livelihood, something like €500/month plus rent and health insurance. And that it doesn't really matter how much savings I have, I can't just live from my savings. But then how are people allowed to retire here?

     

    I've been here for more than five years, and have a general work permit, but never got around to getting a permanent Niederlassungserlaubnis. I have enough savings that I could maybe take early retirement already, or at least semi-retirement (not taking my pension yet). But ironically, I'm worried now about not getting a permanent permit, not even getting my current one renewed, and being kicked out of Germany, for not making enough money. I suppose I could try to get some kind of office job or whatever, get the permanent permit, then quit. But can't I demonstrate that I have a secure livelihood from my savings, not only from work?

    0

  2. Unlike an RRSP, a TFSA is not taxable at all in Canada, so there's no withholding tax. The German lawyer suggested that because the earnings were tax-privileged in Canada but not in Germany, all past earnings, i.e. the difference between the contributions and the final value at death, might be subject to income tax in Germany if I inherit it. But he didn't know for sure, and said he would have to spend time researching it. I'd rather not finance his education, so I'd like to find someone with direct experience.

     

    I have some other related issues that I need help with. For example there's also a RRIF, which the estate will pay tax on, but the lawyer says I wouldn't get a tax credit for that, and would have to pay income tax in Germany, but I find that hard to believe. The tax treaty should prevent double income tax. If there are huge tax bills, I might end up disclaiming the inheritance, and it will go to another family member in Canada. If not, I'll need help with dealing with tax returns and so on.

    0

  3. I'm looking for a Steuerberater with good experience with Canadian clients.

     

    For example, I need to know whether there is income tax (not inheritance tax) on an inherited tax-free savings account (TFSA). I spoke to a lawyer who specializes in international inheritance cases, and he said it was complicated and he could only guess, based on how a US Roth IRA is taxed. I'd really like to find someone who has actually dealt with an inherited Canadian TFSA, with the Finanzamt, and similar issues. Any recommendations?

    0

  4. 8 hours ago, fraufruit said:

     

    I will be having a connecting domestic flight in the U.S. this week. Masks are required. Also in the airport.

     

    ETA - Just got notice from airline that there will be no mask mandate on my 1.5 hr. flight. I've waited for 3.5 yrs. to fly safely. Fuck!

     

     

     

    Even on the transatlantic flight, a lot of people are still wearing cloth or loose surgical masks, and in any case, everyone removes them the half-dozen times they come around with drinks or food. It was kind of surreal to me, all these precautions, everyone sitting quietly with masks on, then all of a sudden it's happy hour, the masks fly off, and everyone is eating, talking, laughing... then twenty minutes later the masks go back on. When I had to fly, it was before Omicron, and everyone on board had just had a PCR test. Also, the ventilation/filtration on planes is very good. So probably there wasn't that much risk - not as much as at the airport before and after boarding. But things are a little different now.

     

    If you're very immune-compromised, the important thing will be that your own mask fits well. FFP2 has 95% filtration, FFP3 is better than 99%. But if they're loose around the bridge of the nose, that can drop to less than 50%. I've also had a lot of trouble with my glasses fogging up terribly. I've had some success with using "fashion tape" from Amazon, double-sided adhesive tape sold for fixing clothing to the skin. It's very strong though, and removing it (which you have to do at passport control) can be a bit of a pain. I went with one layer of it to stick well to the mask, and another layer of less-sticky tape I had at home, to stick to the skin. Also you can't take it off and on very many times, after three or four times it loses its stickiness.

     

    If you don't mind how it looks, another option could be a reusable elastomer mask, the kind some hospitals use for their staff: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/us/coronavirus-masks-elastomeric-respirators.html The synthetic rubber makes an airtight fit, like a diving mask, so you get the full effect of the filters, which are P3/N100 - 99.95%. Most of them sold on Amazon etc. have an exhalation valve, so they don't meet the mandate requirements, but this one is a special version: https://www.amazon.ca/GVS-SPR644-Exhalation-Respirator-Replaceable/dp/B095YBV2T9?th=1 - I don't see it in Germany, but you could get the equivalent standard model, block the exhalation valve with plastic or aluminum foil, and remove the inhalation valves: https://www.amazon.de/Elipse-SPR501-Feinstaubfiltermaske-Mittel-Gro%C3%9F/dp/B013EBHHH0?th=1 It costs less than a big box of disposable masks, and can be used hundreds of times, so it's a lot better for the environment too.

     

    Don't know if that helps... in any case, I hope you have a safe trip!

     

     

     

     

    4

  5. On 2022-04-10, 12:58:07, keith2011 said:

    Then let me rephrase it as:-

    The current figures for new covid infections, hospital admissions and deaths (from or with covid)  imo suggest that mandatory vaccination with the current vaccines cannot be justified at this time given that they offer little or no protection against the covid variants which are now infecting so many people.

    [...] the figures show the vaccines are not protecting people even those who have been recently boosted. Just look in this forum for the number of reports of people getting covid since the start of 2022 despite being vaccinated and compare that to the previous 2 years. I do believe in vaccination but we need something that is much much more effective and lasts a lifetime, 47% after 3 months just doesn't cut it!

     

     

    Regardless of any discussion about mandatory vaccination, you're still saying that the vaccines "offer little or no protection against the covid variants which are now infecting so many people." The statement is dangerously misleading; it's simply not at all true. Not by a long shot.

     

    The figures show something like a thirty-times higher infection rate than a year ago, so protection against infection with omicron is not so good. Yet despite this, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths, are slightly lower in absolute numbers, and vastly lower relative to a thirty-fold increase in infections (see the charts above). Some may say this is only because Omicron is milder, and has nothing to do with the vaccines. That's also simply not true. Neither is it true that "the jury is still out". Omicron does produce less severe disease overall, and vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death is slightly lower for omicron than for delta, depending on age. But according to a large peer-reviewed study published last month in the Lancet (probably the top medical journal in the world), based on over a million cases of omicron:
     

    "Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases [...] relative protection (vs unvaccinated) against hospital admission with omicron in breakthrough cases remained above 70% (HR <0·3) for all vaccination categories that included a booster dose (adjusted HR for hospital admission 8–11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated 0·22 [95% CI 0·20–0·24]"

    Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study

     

    Unfortunately, we won't be getting a vaccine that lasts a lifetime, but it's likely there will eventually be substantial improvements in effectiveness against infection. 47% is actually pretty good though, it's around what the flu vaccine is many years. Perhaps there will be a combined annual flu/COVID shot. Hopefully there will be advances in therapeutics, anti-virals that can cure an infection. But currently, the mRNA vaccines are highly effective, safe, and the best way to greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death as a result of omicron or any other known variant.

    4

  6. 16 hours ago, Jonny said:

    The CEO of Pfizer actually said that the current vaccines offer little or no protection against Omicron. 

     

    Could it be,  and just think about this,  that Omicron itself protects from serious disease,  hospitalization and death ? It's almost like it's nature's vaccine. 

     

    And if you don't believe me,  what about that highly qualified medical doctor Mr. Bill Gates who admitted as much this year in Munich...

     

    Don't know why he's sad though 😕

     

     

    Why would you listen to what the CEO of Pfizer says? It's his job to sell as many vaccines and boosters, and make as much profit, as possible. He's not a reliable source.

     

    In any case though, that's not what he said, see https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-covid-limited-protection/ He was talking about two doses, and by the time Omicron became dominant, most people who'd had two doses, especially the high-risk groups who got them early, were already six months or more out from their second dose. So they would be looking at the immunity waning to something like 10% effectiveness against infection with Omicron (but much more against severe disease) - see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01753-y He was saying that a booster would be required for renewed protection against infection. And that's correct, a booster returns it to around 70%, for a while. Exactly the same thing would be true about recovery from a previous infection. Six months later, it would provide "very limited protection, if any" against infection with Omicron. The waning of immunity, and less effectiveness against a mutated virus, is a function of the immune system, not so much the vaccine.

     

    But I think Bourla, the Pfizer CEO, was twisting the truth in that interview:

    Quote

    And we know that the…two [doses] of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses — with a booster — they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths. Against deaths, I think [the three doses are] very good, and [they provide] less protection against infection.

     

    "Limited protection, if any" is about infection with Omicron, several months later. Three doses do offer reasonable protection against hospitalizaton and deaths, but so do two. The way he says it makes it sound like there was little or no protection with only two doses, against hospitalization and death, without actually saying it. Again, it's literally his job to sell boosters.

     

    "Omicron itself protects from serious disease,  hospitalization and death" - yes, of course it does. Smallpox too. If you live. What's your point? If you want to protect against infection from Omicron, "getting infected with Omicron" is not a rational strategy. It's a dangerous disease. Far FAR more dangerous than the vaccine. If you're one of the lucky ones who only got a mild case and no ongoing symptoms, then I'm happy for you, and for everyone else in that situation. Bill Gates is sad that so many people, particularly in Africa, have had to aquire immunity through infection with Omicron, with many suffering long COVID, and many thousands of deaths, instead of through the safe and effective vaccine that could have prevented a very large portion of that, if it had have been distributed in time.

    1

  7. 3 hours ago, Jonny said:

    So when would you actually say it's OK for people to stop wearing masks ? What's your criteria ?

     

    That's a good question. The answer is certainly not "today". My criteria would include the health minister no longer saying things like "The risk of becoming infected now is higher than ever. Please voluntarily wear masks indoors", and the numbers looking a little more like last summer than they do now:

     

    screenshot_82.jpg.cbb13413356f5b2efd17a0

     

    And I guess, a new more severe and equally contagious variant not showing up.

     

    To be honest, if you are vaccinated and recently recovered from Omicron, it wouldn't bother me if you didn't wear a mask for the next month or so. After that...??

    4

  8. 19 minutes ago, vulturesquadron said:

     

    Is that so? My understanding is that the vaccines are directed solely at the spike protein, whereas natural infection stimulates a broader immune response.

     

    You're right, the response to the vaccine isn't exactly the same as to the actual virus. Following an infection, the immune response is mostly against the outer part of the virus. Some (but not all) people also develop antibodies to internal parts. More importantly, the current vaccines are based on the original spike proteins, which are significantly changed in Omicron. So they're less effective against it than they were against the original strain. There isn't a simple answer to whether being vaccinated or recovered provides better immunity. There are a lot of variables. I wouldn't be surpised if recovery from Omicron provides better protection against (re-)infection with Omicron than the current vaccines do. Recovery from Delta, not so much.

     

    In any case, the point is that immunity to COVID due to circulating antibodies, whether from infection or vaccination, wanes over several months to a level that is no longer able to prevent infection. The complaint that the vaccines don't provide life-long immunity the way the measles vaccine does, and therefore there's something wrong with them, is false, a red herring. Nobody should expect life-long protection through a COVID vaccine. That's not going to happen, due to the nature of the virus and the immune system. It's not a valid criticism of the vaccines.

    4

  9. 8 minutes ago, Jonny said:

     

    No. Because you'll be wearing one so I don't need to. Thanks. 

     

    That's not how it works. Masks don't provide 100% protection, especially if an infected person isn't wearing one. As I said:

     

    Quote

    I think everyone has an obligation to do what they can to help slow it down. The more-vulnerable people can avoid going to restaurants or other high-risk activities, but many have no choice about going grocery shopping. They will wear masks, but it's well-known that masks at the source, the infected person, are far more effective at controlling spread than on the susceptible person. It would be really decent of you to wear a mask in the supermarket.

     

    Is it really such a burden for you to put on a mask while grocery shopping? It just seems like common courtesy for the safety of your fellow Bürgers, like using condoms in the AIDS era, or not driving drunk. In these days of continued record-high infection rates, where before we used to cover our mouth when coughing or sneezing, now, in some situations, we cover it all the time. Couldn't you get used to it? I mean really, it seems like the decent thing to do.

     

    Having said that, there's an obligation for susceptible people to wear well-fitting N95/FFP2 or better masks, which almost nobody does. Pretty much everyone has a big gap around the bridge of their nose. If your glasses fog up, you're doing it wrong. Use some double-sided tape. And nevermind loose surgical masks, or wearing them below the nose... Here is a chart showing percentage of inward leakage, comparing an FFP2 mask without adjusting it for a good fit, FFP2 adjusted for fit, double-masking with FFP2 + surgical, an FFP2 with double-sided tape on the bridge of the nose, and a surgical mask only. There's a huge difference...

     

    625323fc707d9_Figcopy.jpg.31507adb690581

     

    https://www.pnas.org/content/118/49/e2110117118

    3

  10. On 2022-04-07, 1:36:00, sumguy said:

    How is it that you believe the vaccine prevents infection?

    On 2022-04-07, 6:55:39, Jonny said:

    I don't. Certainly the corona ones don't prevent infections,  spread,  symptoms etc. Seems a lot of other ones do though.  If I had 3 measles injections in a year and still got measles,  I'd think there was something wrong .

     

    So... you'll be wearing a mask in the supermarket then? Thanks, appreciate it.

     

    "If I had 3 measles injections in a year and still got measles, I'd think there was something wrong."

     

    Another tired anti-vax trope that's been posted here numerous times. Typically as one of those oh-so-edgy image macro memes copied from Facebook...

     

    The simple fact is that the human body produces life-long immunity to measles infection, after recovery. It does not produce life-long immunity to other pathogens, like the flu, tetanus, and the corona viruses (including the ones that cause a common cold). The reasons have to do with the mutational stability of the organism, and the level and persistence in the body of the different specific antibodies required to fight them off. Some antibodies decay faster than others. I can explain in more detail if you're interested.

     

    The vaccine only simulates an attack, tricking the immune system into mounting the same defence as it would to the real thing. If that wanes after a few months, blame your immune system, not the vaccine.

     

    Is it possible that improved vaccines could be developed? Absolutely. But don't expect life-long immunity, because that's not how humans work. Does that mean there's something wrong, that the vaccines we have are laughably ineffective? No. Not even remotely.

    5

  11. On 2022-04-08, 12:11:45, keith2011 said:

     

    You're on, in fact I will even give you the option of double or quits on a further 6 months when I win your €100 on the 8-Oct-22.

     

     

    It's a sucker's bet. Chances are you'll have some sort of medical issue in the next six months, whether that's a stubbed toe or pancreatic cancer. In Mr.Bore's paranoid comic-book world of sinister dark agents, where everyone dies from the vaccine, but with COVID, whatever it is will be a side-effect of the vaccine. You can't win.

    1

  12. 21 hours ago, Mr.Bear said:

    The total number of deaths associated with the Covid-19 vaccines in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

    is 26,396...

     

    You keep posting the same tired old anti-vax meme over and over. There was no evidence whatsoever that these deaths were caused by the vaccine the last twelve times you posted it, and there still isn't.

     

    The number of events reported are higher due to increased reporting requirements during the pandemic. In the US, healthcare workers are required to report all deaths that follow a vaccination, regardless of whether they suspect any connection. On the other hand, it's common sense that people will be less likely to report a death to the system, the longer it occurs after the vaccination. Yawn.

     

    Increase in COVID-19 VAERS Reports Due To Reporting Requirements, Intense Scrutiny of Widely Given Vaccines - FactCheck.org


    Viral Posts Misuse VAERS Data to Make False Claims About COVID-19 Vaccines - FactCheck.org
     

    Fact Check-Reports of 9,318 VAERS COVID-19 vaccine deaths do not prove causality | Reuters

     

    etc., etc...

     

    There are actually a lot of valid criticisms to be made of the vaccines and the related health policies. Why not do some actual thinking, instead of going with this fantasy conspiracy stuff? I mean it's on the level of Q-Anon, and "Hillary Clinton is a baby-eating pedophile who secretly controls Al-Qaeda".

    3

  13. On 2022-04-08, 6:17:45, keith2011 said:

    Mandatory vaccination with the current vaccines is pointless at this time given that they offer little or no protection against the covid variants which are now infecting so many people

     

    Please stop saying that. It's simply not true.

     

    A peer-reviewed study of over 25,000 people, published in February by Nature (one of the top scientific journals), found the following:

    - After the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, effectiveness against infection by Omicron had waned from 44% to 23% after three months, and to 6% after nine months.

    - A third dose increased effectiveness against infection by Omicron back to 72%, waning after three months to 47%.

    - After three doses, the effectiveness against hospitalization, with Omicron or Delta, was greater than 99%, among the people studied.

     

    Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01753-y

     

    Another study showed mRNA vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization with Omicron to be 81% 14–179 days after dose 2, 57% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 90% ≥14 days after dose 3:

     

    Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance — VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e3.htm?s_cid=mm7104e3_w

     

    There are numerous other studies that show rougly the same thing. These numbers could be off to some extent, but there's no way that the vaccines "offer little or no protection" against Omicron - especially from serious disease, hospitalization, and death.

     

     

    3

  14. 17 hours ago, Jonny said:

    ...the government said it's no longer necessary to wear a mask...

     

    No, they did not say that. They said that given the hospitalization rates, it's not justifiable, at the moment, for them to force people by law to do so. They continue to say that people should definitely wear a mask in public. Germany's Federal Minister of Health announced: "Individuals should not be thrown off guard by the relaxations now: The pandemic is not over yet. The risk of becoming infected now is higher than ever. Please voluntarily wear masks indoors."

    https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2022-04/55672760-lauterbach-bitte-tragen-sie-freiwillig-masken-in-innenraeumen-016.htm

     

    Vaccines and boosters are still the best way to reduce severe disease and death from COVID infections. But they don't stop infections and spread, especially as the virus mutates farther away from the original. It's still vital to carry on at the same time with other measures to help prevent infections and spread, including distancing, hand hygiene, adequate ventliation, and masks.

     

    Furthermore, there are new variants showing up (Omicron plus Delta's L452R mutation) in France and elsewhere, that appear to have the contagiousness of Omicron, plus the disease severity of Delta, see Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding's tweet:

    twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1510957531757223942

    (though take the "66% in South Africa" with a grain of salt, as it's based on a very small number of gene sequences)

    And this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-00941-z

     

    We are not out of the woods yet. Watch out for the bears.

     

     

    17 hours ago, Jonny said:

    I don't wear a mask because I'm healthy,  I'm vaccinated and I've had covid.

     I'm not a risk to anyone. 

     

    How is it that you believe the vaccine prevents infection? Vast numbers of people are getting infected despite being vaccinated and boosted, and getting re-infected with Omicron just a few weeks after recovering. You are absolutely at risk of getting infected and spreading it. And from what you've said, the chances are that you won't even know you're infected. It's also completely untrue that you won't spread it because you don't sputter and cough - just talking sends out large clouds of virus particles, because the vocal cords act like atomizers, and because everyone spits when they talk, even if you don't see it.

     

    It's true that the great majority of people on Earth will not be hospitalized or die from COVID, at least in its current forms. Nevertheless, millions already have, and millions more will, plus the tens or hundreds of millions that will suffer long-term symptoms. About half the people in Germany still have not been infected. I think everyone has an obligation to do what they can to help slow it down. The more vulnerable people can avoid going to restaurants or other high-risk activities, but many have no choice about going grocery shopping. They will wear masks, but it's well-known that masks at the source, the infected person, are far more effective at controlling spread than on the susceptible person. It would be really decent of you to wear a mask in the supermarket.

     

    7

  15. One more thing - the Yellow Card system is open to the public to make reports online. Anyone can just fill out the form on the website and report any adverse event. Your dog died? Spilled a glass of milk? You can report that as an adverse vaccine reaction, and it will be duly noted.

     

    Here is a detailed explanation by the UK government of how the Yellow Card system actually works: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#yellow-card-reports

    2

  16. 2 hours ago, Mr.Bear said:

    Yellow Card, UK. 2

    1.jpg

     

    Feel free to check it up and wake the fuck up.

     

    Feel free to check the following, and shut the fuck up.

     

    Seriously, if you are interested in participating in a reasoned discussion, that's fine. But if you're unable to string a rational argument together, and are here to do nothing but re-post a bunch of preposterous propaganda and crazed conspiracy theory... go get lost in the woods.

     

    Twisting the meaning of the adverse drug reaction reporting systems is the oldest and most tired "astonishing supressed truth" that addle-brained anti-vaxxers have been tossing around, long before COVID. We've seen this many times in this thread already. Yawn.

     

    From the actual coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk site, not the bogus "UK Freedom Project" that misrepresents it:

     

     

    Quote

     

    COVID-19 Vaccines

    Vaccines are the most effective way to prevent infectious diseases and they save millions of lives worldwide. Like all medicines, vaccines can cause side effects. Most of these are mild and short-term, and not everyone gets them.

     

    And Reuters' fact-check article about these false claims about vaccine safety, wilfully made by Mr.Bore and his ilk:

    Fact Check-Reports made to Britain’s Yellow Card scheme are not confirmed adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccines

     

    And many similar debunking articles: https://www.reuters.com/search/news?blob=fact+check+adverse+drug+reactions

    5

  17. On 2022-03-27, 11:39:50, Mr.Bear said:

    "The vaccine prevents hospitalisation" is such a big lie that allopathic medicine may never ever recover.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

     

     

    11jpg.jpg

     

     

    Compare the hospitalizations to the number of cases:

     

    screenshot_78.jpg.98d5e047bfae6a8cd91ed1

     

    screenshot_77.jpg.71d0110f5e278c5fb1ab8c

     

    In January 2021, as the vaccine was just beginning to roll out, there was a peak of about 50,000 cases per day, with about 4,000 being admitted to hospital. A proportion of 0.08. In January 2022, with a peak of about 200,000 cases, we should have seen 16,000 hospitalizations if the vaccine was a "big lie". Yet there were just over 2,000. A proportion of 0.01. A reduction of more than 85%. Part of that could be attributed to Omicron causing less severe disease, but in large part it's the vaccines. There are enough studies from reliable sources that show that, if you care to look. But Mr.Bore doesn't care. He's only interested in trolling and spreading disinformation. The "big lie" is the one he is telling.

     

    Vaccines are highly effective, generally safe, and greatly reduce the chances of serious disease, hospitalization, and death.

     

    4

  18. 19 minutes ago, Mr.Bear said:

     

    Indeed.

    Better leave those people just to die in a hospital than provide an unknown drug for them, right?

    When a judge orders hospital to treat Covid patient with ivermectin then is clear that something is not right.

     

     

    If someone is dying in the hospital, then by all means give them Ivermectin, prayers, garlic, and crystal energy treatments if you want to. I'm against people dying in hospitals.

     

    If they are dying in the hospital because they listened to an irresponsible provocateur like you, relied on being cured by Ivermectin, and didn't get themselves vaccinated, then I'm against you, and your campaign to spread false information with the goal of convincing people that vaccines are not only unnecessary, but harmful. As I said, it's immoral and abhorrent.

     

    5

  19. 5 hours ago, Mr.Bear said:

     

    Ah yes, Mr.Bear is back to shitting in the woods again...

     

    A quick check on the work of Tess Lawrie, who is associated with the anti-vax group Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), shows that it's also fuckt:

     

    Ivermectin isn’t a highly effective drug for treating COVID-19 - Lawrie's claims are "unsupported", "misleading", and "inaccurate".

     

    The COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group of the province of Alberta, Canada, states that out of all the papers claiming some effectiveness of Ivermectin, Lawrie's meta-analysis was "critically low quality", "due to extreme concerns about bias":


    Ivermectin Evidence Review Update Oct 5, 2021, AHS Scientific Advisory Group

     

    The American Journal of Therapeutics, which published a paper co-authored by Lawrie, showing decreased COVID-19 mortality via the use of Ivermectin, subsequently published an expression of concern due to inaccurate reporting in the primary sources used, that they said invalidates the findings.

     

    Even Quillette, normally a right-leaning anti-SJW publication, called another of Lawrie's papers "phenomenally insane", and the antics of her FLCCC compatriots "promotion of outright quackery" and Alex-Jones-inspired conspiracy theory:

     

    Looking for COVID-19 ‘Miracle Drugs’? We Already Have Them. They’re Called Vaccines

     

    It's possible that Ivermectin may have some positive effect - or not. There is simply not good-quality evidence yet to justify rolling it out to millions or billions of people. It's also possible that there are economic reasons for that lack of evidence, and it would be in Pfizer's interest to interfere with it, if it reduced their potential market for and profits from the vaccine.

     

    On the other hand, it's in everyone's interest to reject the outlandish claims of Ivermectin being a miracle drug that could "end the pandemic in a month", and wild paranoid conspiracy theories of a planet-wide cabal supressing this incredible truth. Currently, the vaccines are the best way to prevent serious disease and death. Despite the number of infections being ten times higher than last winter, the number of hospitalizations is significantly less, and deaths are only about a quarter. Much of that is due to the vaccines. Giving people false hope and disinformation that would mislead them to avoid getting vaccinated is immoral and abhorrent.

     

    It's easy to find reliable sources that debunk the more preposterous fabrications, if you care to look. Clearly Mr.Bear doesn't care.

    5

  20. 10 hours ago, Jonny said:

    I agree.  It's survival of the fittest. I'm fine with modern medicine counteracting that but not at the expense of everyone else.

     

    I'm fine with you testing the limits of your natural-born immune system, but not at the expense of everyone else.

     

    It's a dangerous virus that has killed millions, so I would strongly advise that you don't do that. But it's your body, your choice. If you purposely infect yourself, then go immediately into quarantine so that you don't infect anyone else, no problem. Whatever doesn't kill you, will make you stronger. But if it turns out that it's the former, then man up and die. What I'm not fine with is if you then go crying to the ICU, occupy a bed that could have been avoided, maybe infect some medical staff, and waste tens of thousands of euros of the health insurance pool while you do so.

     

    Vaccines protect against serious disease and hospitalization. The immunity you will get after an infection will do that too. But you have to make it through first. The chances of you surviving are far, far less if you're not vaccinated. If you're vaccinated and get infected anyway, your protection afterwards will be greater than either of those. The chances of serious disease or hospitalization as a result of the vaccine are so low as to be effectively zero - certainly hundreds, probably thousands or even millions of times less than the chances of contracting the virus and developing serious, possibly long-term illness, or dying, if you're not vaccinated.

    3

  21. 6 hours ago, Mr.Bear said:

     

     

     

    Oh dear Mr.Bear, I'm afraid you've accidentally stumbled out of the woods, and into a civilized area where people like Brand are at least attempting (if not succeeding) to make actual, rational, thoughtful arguments. You'll probably want to lumber back in the direction you came from, to the forest of wackazoid conspiracy theory, where the vaccines don't work and actually make you sicker than the virus does. On the other hand, if you are truly interested in learning things, like walking on two legs and eating with a knife and fork, then why not skip over lightweight chucklehead Brand and take a bite of someone with a bit more meat?

     

    Chomsky: Big Pharma Cares More About Profiting From COVID Than Human Survival

    0

  22. I decided to wait out the six months before getting the booster. I was wondering if I really needed one at all, since they say the protection against severe disease lasts quite long, and because the WHO was criticizing them. But I read that people were something like 20 times less likely to get seriously ill after a booster. So I went to get one today.

     

    This page: https://www.berlin.de/corona/impfen/ says that the vaccination centre at Alexa is open, but it isn't. It was closed down last month. The nearest one is at the Ring Center, top floor. They have Moderna and BioNTech, and you can get whichever one you want, even if you're over 30. You don't need an appointment, there was no lineup, and no waiting - even on a Saturday afternoon - other than the 15 minutes afterwards. It seemed easier than going to a doctor's office.

    1