Covid-19 (WuFlu) News

  • It clearly shows that mortality is higher in the vaccinated group.


    Navid, please explain your statement. There are two actively vaccinated figures: 18.2% and 87.8% - differing in what was done. There is one non-vaccinated figure 48.7%


    In what world is that "clearly shows mortality is higher in vaccinated groip"


    It is higher by 2X in active vaccine / no passive booster. It is lower by 2X in active vaccinated with passive booster.


    As the paper points out, this is a (very early) vaccine that badly needs those passive boosters.


    In what weird world does that make your point?


    If you are saying that vaccination of soldiers during WW2 was not properly understood, and they were not all given an effective vaccine. I'd agree. But i think you are trying to make some point about vaccines not working?

  • Your science is as slippery as a fish.


    What does that even mean? Other than being propaganda.


    The science here (exactly how does the immune system work) is not simple. However the numbers - safety and efficacy - are indisputable.


    To promote your anti-vax PR you need to retreat to "complex science" that has no quantitative evidence to back it - or where it does have quantitative evidence you misinterpret it as in the WW2 Tetanus paper.


    That is an assertion based on the fact you have not yet ante'd up any quantitative evidence. I'll retract it if you come up with something relevant and factual.

  • The paper says that tracing for the last 48 hour contacts is enough. A new evaluation of the data shows that in this case you only get 61% of the potential infections. A new evaluation of the data shows that in this case you only get 61% of the potential infections. 5 days back you get 97% of all infections.


    Getting 61% is more than enough to lower the R0 below 1, stopping the pandemic. Getting 97% would be better of course, but it is not necessary. In real life, you can never get 97% because people will not recall that many contacts (where they went, or who they met). Going back 5 days is problematic for that reason as well. Ask yourself if you can remember a week back which day you went to the grocery store or someone's house. If you have a moderately active life and you do not keep a detailed diary, you may well have forgotten. (I believe in Alaska, public health officials asked people to keep diaries of when they leave home.)

  • I showed you the data and you want to play poker with it. It clearly shows that mortality is higher in the vaccinated group.


    What the data shows is that for every major vaccine, millions of people have not died every decade, and hundreds of millions more have been spared suffering, while a few hundred have been hurt. That's what the data shows. What you tell us is a vile lie that will cause terrible harm if enough people believe you. You are peddling death. Agony and death. I suppose because you want to imagine you know better than experts, and you are superior to the rest of us.

  • What the data shows is that for every major vaccine, millions of people have not died every decade, and hundreds of millions more have been spared suffering, while a few hundred have been hurt. That's what the data shows. What you tell us is a vile lie that will cause terrible harm if enough people believe you. You are peddling death. Agony and death. I suppose because you want to imagine you know better than experts, and you are superior to the rest of us.


    This doesn't look like science. Peddling death, that's a good one. I showed you a graph of measles and it didn't look like anyone was peddling death.


    If you care about death, go advocate for HCQ and petition your medical overlords to open up the use of the drugs. Go raise some money to get the nail in the coffin research done to even further show in a perfect study - which almost never happens in science.

    By the way, maybe you can raise money for a first of a kind actual study of vaccine vs unvaccinated persons - with actual saline controls - and how about not selecting out people who are not in perfect health, and also study them for long enough to see the outcomes? Some people on the planet don't have food to eat, I'm sure we can find a population to try this on if it will for the first time show vaccines save the world?

  • https://www.news.com.au/travel…c5ebd4836759432e768a9be30


    Were Sherlock Homes alive today, maybe he could solve this mystery. Personally, I think the butler did it.

    The virus can be transported by aerosols. This is what leaves your mask. This transport is possible over hundreds of meters and farther. Aerosols stay in air for ours that's why you should enter a contaminated room only with a full protection suit. Best source to get teh virus: Walk along the outlet of the aircondition.

    That's why I predicted all people on Diamond princess will be contaminated. But as we know today about 80% have a cross immunity and so only about 20% got it.

  • Hmm, death statistics is easily misleading. Sweden has a death toll of around 600 deaths / million. But for the first 6 month we have a surplus of 400 / million deaths. Now if this trend of 30-40 / million deaths less than normal per month we will end this year with a death toll of 200 / million. A bad flu year like 2018 has an excess death of 100 / million. Of cause deaths is not the only issue as has been told over and over again, but this post is to illustrate the difficulties in statistics. Now If we look at the elderly care where more then 75% of the death cases come from 15% of the cases where deaths by covid, 85% of the cases was death with covid. In all this indicates strongly that most deadly infected individuals where balancing on the line with already a deadly illness. I think that we should probably try to focus less on deaths and more on the side effects of getting a severe covid infection. How many have problems in Sweden? in other countries?

  • Wyttenbach has a point and if not backed by science certainly is by history after ww1 ended and troops returned with the flu in the trench stories the media went wild. It prompted local and state government to iissue mask mandates across the US. Then the second wave hit with all due respect to grandpa Rothwell, 195,000 masked up Americans died in the first month alone 675,000 overall with up to 50 million dead worldwide next pandemic 1957 and 1968 hmmmm no mask mandates much lower deaths the media allowed the government to turn it over to the medical community. Now today, seems people like Biden screaming for mask mandates have forgotten to take a closer look at history. He who fails to understand history are doomed to repeat

  • When the politicians realize their political future may be in peril for being on the wrong side of HCQ, you can see the tide may turn.


    Ultimately, you are an enemy of the people if you are for locking down a drug -- and even paid performers like the FUD disseminators and the media may turn.


    Let's hope there is a backlash and all the criminals are outed (but we all know there isn't real journalism these days - just CNN kangaroo court).


    If someone steels bread we lock them up in jail still.

    Yet,, these days if someone stirs deception they are virtuous. Arguing for state intervention in personal affairs (take vaccines or else!) and knowing we have treatments that work for covid but outlawing them is the type of criminality we are dealing with. Imposed "science-based" virtue on the other hand, deceptive blocking "science-based" virtue on the other hand.


    The politicians are savy, they see the tide turning and are reversing course on HCQ. Eventually, hopefully the light of science makes it way to the vaccine industry and the politicians get poked with a hot iron to question the unquestionable.


    https://www.zerohedge.com/poli…course-hydroxychloroquine

  • https://www.tabletmag.com/sect…chloroquine-morality-tale


    "this story is twofold. It’s about the discussion that unfolded (and is still unfolding) around hydroxychloroquine, but if you’re here for a definitive answer to a narrow question about one specific drug (“does hydroxychloroquine work?”), you will be disappointed. Because what our tale is really concerned with is the perilous state of vulnerability of our scientific discourse, models, and institutions—which is arguably a much bigger, and more urgent problem, since there are other drugs that must be tested for safety and effectiveness (most complex illnesses like COVID-19 often require a group of medications) as well as vaccines, which would be slated to be given to billions of people.


    After saying this, it becomes a long read. Very good history though, about how/why HCQ started being used for COVID, the studies, their flaws/weaknesses, and then concludes with this:


    "If you think this year’s controversy is bad, consider that hydroxychloroquine is given to relatively few people with COVID-19, all sick, many with nothing to lose. It enters the body, and leaves fairly quickly, and has been known to us for decades. COVID vaccines, which advocates will want to be mandatory and given to all people—healthy and not, young and old—are being rushed past their normal safety precautions and regulations, and the typical five-to-10-year observation period is being waived to get “Operation Warp Speed” done as soon as possible. This is being done with the endorsement of public health officials—the same ones, in many cases who are saying HCQ is suddenly extremely dangerous."

  • When the politicians realize their political future may be in peril for being on the wrong side of HCQ, you can see the tide may turn.


    As far as I know, few politicians have said anything about HCQ. If this issue becomes controversial in the future, all they need to say is: "we followed the best expert advice at the time." They can blame experts at the CDC or someplace like that, which put out reports saying HCQ does not work. (I am not following this controversy, so I do not know which experts such as Fauci, or what agencies or journals said that.)


    Normally, I do not like to see politicians or political leaders point fingers and say "that was not my responsibility." But in this case, with a technical medical or scientific controversy, I think it is appropriate for the politicians to do that. Let the medical researchers and doctors hash out this problem. Blame Fauci if this goes wrong.


    I hate to hear politicians say, "I am not a scientist but . . ." blah, blah. If you are not a scientist then shut up and don't give us any ignorant, misinformed nonsense about science. The history of cold fusion was mainly shaped by people who knew nothing but they went ahead and made fatuous pronouncements that derailed the research and gave both scientists and the public nonsensical ideas such as you find in Wikipedia and the Scientific American. If you are not an expert, or if you are a scientist but you have not done your homework about cold fusion, then shut up! Say nothing! You have no right to an opinion.


    Imagine that a half-hour after Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River (because of Canadian geese it turned out), a politician called a press conference to say, "I am not a pilot or an expert on aircraft but let me tell you what I think caused this accident." No, you are not a pilot, so be quiet, get out of the way, and let the experts have the podium.

  • If you care about death, go advocate for HCQ and petition your medical overlords to open up the use of the drugs.


    I have no idea whether HCQ works or not. I have not read the technical literature. However, in this discussion you are talking about vaccines. You claim they do not work. That is an outrageous lie. It is a dangerous, evil lie, that will kill millions of people if it becomes widespread. It resembles the lie that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Since you apparently believe this lie, I assume you have no common sense, no scientific knowledge, and no knowledge of history, public health or statistics. So -- even though I know nothing about the HCQ controversy -- you are the last person on earth I would trust about HCQ, or take advice from. You are probably the kind of idiot who would advise me to ingest disinfectants, the way Trump did. I would not trust your judgement about this or any other subject.


    In short, when you post messages claiming that vaccines do not work, and they are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, you destroy your own credibility. Everything else you say here, about all other subjects, should go straight into the garbage can. You prove you are a dangerous, ignorant fool. In a pandemic you are a candidate for the Darwin Award (for suicide by stupidity), like the people who refuse to wear masks.

  • Jed, as far as masks, the experts you love to post and quote said in February that masks don't provide any protection from getting the virus only minamal protection for spreading the virus. Both the CDC and the Surgeon General agreed. Then the media turned that narrative upside down and politicians begin mask mandates both the CDC and the Surgeon General caved to media and political pressure. I wear a mask going shopping I did before it was even a subject but as far as protection I have little faith just don't want to run into a Karen!