Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

How to interact with people in an uncertain world

Published

5 years ago

7 minute read

From the Facebook page of Paige Campbell Johns

I want to propose three general ground rules for interacting with people right now.

The rules are: (1) When you make plans, make them very specific, and avoid changing them at the last minute. (2) Defer to the most cautious person in your presence. (3) Do not take it personally if someone is more cautious than you.
To elaborate, with examples I made up:
(1) Be very detailed about any plans you make to see other people. If you invite friends over to sit in your driveway and have a drink, don’t suggest as people arrive that you sit on the back deck instead. Among your friends might be someone intending to give herself 10 feet of space instead of 6. She might have been excited about the driveway idea because it’s not only outdoors but effectively unbounded; she knew she’d be able to make as much space for herself as she felt she needed. Then you move to the deck and space is more limited, and she is faced with a really awkward decision.
If you and your co-worker decide to order from Domino’s, don’t switch it up and order from a local place instead. Your co-worker might be reassured by Domino’s no-human-contact-out-of-the-oven policy. That might be the most important thing to him.
So maybe you’re rolling your eyes right now and thinking, “But all the latest research shows that transmission on food surfaces is not something to be concerned about. Domino’s policy is overkill.” Or, “Transmission outdoors is super unlikely. The deck is fine!”
Not the point!
The point is that trying to make decisions on the fly is incredibly stressful. You might be 100% confident that you understand the relative risk of things. But you don’t know what other people’s understanding is. And the split-second after being told that the location or the menu has changed is not a good scenario for evaluating risk, especially with an audience. Don’t put people in that position.
(2) On that note, when you and a person in your presence have different (verbalized or apparent) levels of caution, the obvious and decent thing to do is match the more cautious person’s behaviors. If you don’t wear a mask but you notice one of your co-workers tends to, then put on a mask when you are going to be anywhere near them. Their mask usage is a clear indicator that they think mask usage is important. So match that caution in their presence as a courtesy, whether or not you acknowledge the public health value of wearing one.
If you and a friend want to take a walk, and you weren’t thinking 6 feet of space was essential, but they suggest a route and mention that they like it because there is plenty of space to give each other 6 feet, then be conscientious and pay attention, and give them space. If you get to a narrow area, recognize that you’ll have to go single-file until it widens again.
Look for body language. Get in the habit of noticing whether people are inching away or leaning back. This tells you that they are not comfortable. They are more cautious than your instincts. That doesn’t mean your instincts are wrong. But in the presence of this person, you need to defer to theirs.
(3) This also doesn’t mean that this person has an issue with you in particular. Do not take it personally.
Some people are approaching the world with an understanding that there are essentially two groups of people: the ones I live with, and everyone else. From a public health perspective, the standards I apply to interacting with anyone in the latter group should be consistent, whether you are someone I work with, a friend, a relative, or a stranger. I do not and cannot know whether you are carrying a potentially deadly, poorly understood, highly contagious virus, so to the greatest extent possible, I’m going to behave like you are carrying it, no matter who you are. It is more nuanced than that, of course, but not much. The point is, even if you’re not careless, the relative you just met for lunch yesterday might have been careless over the weekend. I do not, and cannot know.
So if someone says no thanks to your back deck or favorite pizza, or they wear a mask in a situation you find unnecessary, or they give you a wide berth around the corner of the trail, it’s really, truly, not about you. People want to interact with the world, and some of us never stop thinking about how to do it right in this not-at-all right world we find ourselves in.
I hope these are ideas people can agree to. I hope that, even if you are tired of modifying your behavior, or skeptical about the seriousness of this virus, you will consider these thoughts with a spirit of kindness. I hope, if you have kids, you will talk to them about how their behavior can not only affect other people’s physical health, but also their emotional well-being while trying to navigate many decisions.
Thanks for reading. Be good to each other. Stay safe. Deep breaths.
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Economy / 13 hours ago

US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal

Crime / 13 hours ago

Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

International / 14 hours ago

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

COVID-19

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Published on May 3, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.

In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).

Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.

Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.

Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).

 

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

Trending

X