AMA stepping in since CDC is muzzled

[Anonymous]

Although the vaccine did not prevent all infections, it did prevent some. That is, you were less likely to become infected if you were vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're anti-science, then don't come to my ER. Just don't.

Stay home and get healed on your knees, chin to the sky in prayer.

Everyone is anti-science until they need that science to save them and stay alive. And then as soon as they're healed, "thank god!" is what they say. No, thank science, you ignoramus.

No reason to be hateful towards religious people. My church had strict social distancing during the pandemic and most people eagerly got the vaccine. My elderly aunt and uncle are devout Catholics (and Democrats if it matters) and only started going back to in-person Mass in 2023. Oh, and my uncle was a prominent cardiologist before retiring.

We're not all anti-science evangelicals.

practicing social distancing and getting the vaccine are not "anti science" - no reason for you to be defensive

Social distancing was 1000% anti-science. Fauci admitted he pulled it out of his azz.

That anti science rhetoric caused more harm than good.

It is also anti science to demand that healthy young people take a vaccine that conveys zero benefits.

I didn't know this was 1000% anti-science?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10446910/#abstract1

The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation.

6 ft came from years of research on influenza/droplet transmission (it's been a general practice in hospitals during flu season prior to the politizaiton during COVID), but no it isn't as effective on COVID which can be airborne in certain circumstances particularly when ventilation is poor or in a small room or when speaking/singing loudly, for which most of the population was without prior immunity in the early years, and for which some people are superspreaders.

If you want to talk about science, pull research studies, and talk about science.

Covid is airborne and not droplets! There is your first mistake. Droplets settle rapidly and don’t travel distances. If Covid was droplets that would work.

BUT IT IS AIRBORNE. Surgical masks don’t stop airborne transmission. Social distancing doesn’t stop transmission.

Trust the science!

Yes I said it can be airborne and you ignored the research review linked on social distancing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're anti-science, then don't come to my ER. Just don't.

Stay home and get healed on your knees, chin to the sky in prayer.

Everyone is anti-science until they need that science to save them and stay alive. And then as soon as they're healed, "thank god!" is what they say. No, thank science, you ignoramus.

No reason to be hateful towards religious people. My church had strict social distancing during the pandemic and most people eagerly got the vaccine. My elderly aunt and uncle are devout Catholics (and Democrats if it matters) and only started going back to in-person Mass in 2023. Oh, and my uncle was a prominent cardiologist before retiring.

We're not all anti-science evangelicals.

practicing social distancing and getting the vaccine are not "anti science" - no reason for you to be defensive

Social distancing was 1000% anti-science. Fauci admitted he pulled it out of his azz.

That anti science rhetoric caused more harm than good.

It is also anti science to demand that healthy young people take a vaccine that conveys zero benefits.

I didn't know this was 1000% anti-science?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10446910/#abstract1

The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation.

6 ft came from years of research on influenza/droplet transmission (it's been a general practice in hospitals during flu season prior to the politizaiton during COVID), but no it isn't as effective on COVID which can be airborne in certain circumstances particularly when ventilation is poor or in a small room or when speaking/singing loudly, for which most of the population was without prior immunity in the early years, and for which some people are superspreaders.

If you want to talk about science, pull research studies, and talk about science.

Covid is airborne and not droplets! There is your first mistake. Droplets settle rapidly and don’t travel distances. If Covid was droplets that would work.

BUT IT IS AIRBORNE. Surgical masks don’t stop airborne transmission. Social distancing doesn’t stop transmission.

Trust the science!

Yes I said it can be airborne and you ignored the research review linked on social distancing

DP to add that two way masking decreases airborne transmission. Even for TB patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
News Flash:
1. Stop consuming garbage.
2. Learn to build your immunity.

You're a moron.

You sound like another physician who never had a single course in nutrition. But of course no shortage of courses on how to maximize your profits.

Ask me how I know, lol.

[Anonymous]

Why is no one asking OP any questions for this AMA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this means is that the last bit of credibility the medical profession has will soon be gone. The AMA is a money-driven lobbying group entirely without ethics and utterly indifferent to science when scientific principles conflict with the profit motive.

Get used to it. This is what’s going to happen to every other federal agency being shuttered.

+1 Or would MAGA rather be like those people in "Don't Look Up". That's what Mump wants, for people to not see the ramifications of their actions on people's health and our food supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the CDC has been muzzled, the American Medical Association is doing the kinds of briefings the CDC would typically do. You can find it on the AMA YouTube channel.

Apparently bird flu is becoming a worrisome issue, and the AMA is doing the best it can to communicate with the stakeholders that our CDC normally would…but for this chaotic, misguided administration.

Is it going to be as bad as Monkey Pox? Lol

Okay MAGA moron

[Anonymous]

The CDC is frozen and they have appointed a crazy person to HHS.

The AMA might not be perfect, but it’s better than the worse than nothing that we have now. Thank god for the Canadians and the EU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're anti-science, then don't come to my ER. Just don't.

Stay home and get healed on your knees, chin to the sky in prayer.

Everyone is anti-science until they need that science to save them and stay alive. And then as soon as they're healed, "thank god!" is what they say. No, thank science, you ignoramus.

No reason to be hateful towards religious people. My church had strict social distancing during the pandemic and most people eagerly got the vaccine. My elderly aunt and uncle are devout Catholics (and Democrats if it matters) and only started going back to in-person Mass in 2023. Oh, and my uncle was a prominent cardiologist before retiring.

We're not all anti-science evangelicals.

practicing social distancing and getting the vaccine are not "anti science" - no reason for you to be defensive

Social distancing was 1000% anti-science. Fauci admitted he pulled it out of his azz.

That anti science rhetoric caused more harm than good.

It is also anti science to demand that healthy young people take a vaccine that conveys zero benefits.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're anti-science, then don't come to my ER. Just don't.

Stay home and get healed on your knees, chin to the sky in prayer.

Everyone is anti-science until they need that science to save them and stay alive. And then as soon as they're healed, "thank god!" is what they say. No, thank science, you ignoramus.

No reason to be hateful towards religious people. My church had strict social distancing during the pandemic and most people eagerly got the vaccine. My elderly aunt and uncle are devout Catholics (and Democrats if it matters) and only started going back to in-person Mass in 2023. Oh, and my uncle was a prominent cardiologist before retiring.

We're not all anti-science evangelicals.

practicing social distancing and getting the vaccine are not "anti science" - no reason for you to be defensive

Social distancing was 1000% anti-science. Fauci admitted he pulled it out of his azz.

That anti science rhetoric caused more harm than good.

It is also anti science to demand that healthy young people take a vaccine that conveys zero benefits.

Agreed.

I agree that the vaccine is not useful at this point for young people but for the alpha to delta and early stages of omicron, yes benefits outweighed risks. You could have listened to the FDA discussions and read the slides that led to the original recommendations which were very much science based. I also agree it became debatable for the risk vs benefit comparison for adolescent boys and more could have been done to curtail the risk such ad only rec pfizer which was lower rec vs moderna, and spread vaccine doses further apart.

Your blanket statement "zero benefits" is not actually accurate for that period in time, regardless. You might be accurate now, I am also frustrated that the research recommendation has not been updated based on current data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although the vaccine did not prevent all infections, it did prevent some. That is, you were less likely to become infected if you were vaccinated.

That was never true. The Covid vaccine did NOT prevent transmission. It did not prevent infections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although the vaccine did not prevent all infections, it did prevent some. That is, you were less likely to become infected if you were vaccinated.

That was never true. The Covid vaccine did NOT prevent transmission. It did not prevent infections.

It did both statistically but not permanently