Wuhan virus 2020

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

200 will be infected. Some will have not symptoms. Other unvaccinated will get the full affect of COVID or maybe a mild case. The vaccinated are not immune to contracting the virus as we now know. These 100 vaccinated will be infected but will recover quickly.

You mean SOME of the 100 infected vaxxers will recover quickly. Some of them will also die, which proves that at least for them, the vaccines did not work at all.

Also some of both the vaccinated and non-vaccinated in the group may have natural immunity but since the powers that be don't want to track or test for that we don't know how many (if any at all) of your 200 will have already had the disease at some point and that will also affect the numbers.

[MaDef]

Approximately 4 of the 200 infected people will die, depending on what part of the world you live in. If they live in the U.S. 2-3 people will die, if they live in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 8 or 9 will die.

[Arlo]

What is the death level you would find unacceptable? Does that fluctuate with direct proximity?

[Skybird]

And its not just the death level. Its Long Covid. Years-later appearing mortality implications. Flooding of ICU stations. Fallout from that regarding generla health service provision and delayed medical and surgical treatments. Personnel not able to work and business fallout from that.

The fixiation on death rate alone still is inconsistent in itself. And beyond that just one part of the many, many implications. A rat tail of implications, a rat tail with many, many ends.

Covid 19 is the third-most lethal mass pandemic of modern history (after AIDS and the Spanish Flu). Current official lethality is calculated at around 2.2%. Globally, officailly counted numbers read 5 million. The WHO estimates the real number is 2 - 3.5 times as high. 2009 the swine flu was the to-see event. Officially 18500 people died. The Lancet later reported that the real death number must have been between 151.700 and 575.400.

A hypothetical exmaple. Lets assume the swine flu caused the average between the minimum and maximum the Lancet reported, that would be around 363,000. We end roughly with a result that is 19 times higher than the official number. Lets assume that to be a reasonable factor to be applied to the official Covid death count. And you have 95 million dead.

I dont say it was this bad, becasue I simpyl do not know. But the Lancet showed back then reaoisnable arugments why the offiocial numbers have been dramatzically underestmated. And most dying today takes place in the third world with its under-optimised health systems and monitoring systems. And there is polticla will to not klet govenrment appear to be helpless idiots who could not do nothing, there is political will to not let numbers appear to be too high.

I am certain of onyl one thing, however: the real death toll is several times as high than the official counting. And whether the factor is 9 or 19 - is that really a difference from a moral point of view?

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Arlo

What is the death level you would find unacceptable? Does that fluctuate with direct proximity?

irrelevant, it is what it is, and no mask, vaccine, or social distancing mandate is going to put this genie back in the bottle. The powers that be need to realize that and move on.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by MaDef

irrelevant, it is what it is, and no mask, vaccine, or social distancing mandate is going to put this genie back in the bottle. The powers that be need to realize that and move on.

So, basically, 'death is irrelevant and no measure can or should be taken to reduce or alleviate it'. Heaven forbid governments or anything given the responsibility or authority of leadership 'realize that and move on'. That's more along the lines of a Covid worshipping death cult thing (as I've said here before).

Not that my perspective should make a dent on yours.

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

The first pill designed to treat symptomatic Covid has been approved by the UK medicines regulator.

The tablet - molnupiravir - will be given twice a day to vulnerable patients recently diagnosed with the disease.

In clinical trials the pill, originally developed to treat flu, cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about half.

Health secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment was a "gamechanger" for the most frail and immunosuppressed.

In a statement he said: "Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for Covid."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59163899

[Jimbuna]

[August]

Remove the Unvaccinated From Society, Says Radical Leftist Noam Chomsky
by Kyle Schmidbauer October 26, 2021in Current Events, Opinion

........Chomsky’s entire case is predicated on the notion that the unvaccinated pose an existential threat to the vaccinated, which is a blatant lie.

It’s a lie for the simple reason that the vaccines, by and large, work. Breakthrough infections are exceedingly rare, and deaths from breakthrough infections are even rarer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, out of some 220.5 million Americans who have received at least one COVID vaccine dose, only 10,857 have died from breakthrough infections — that translates to around .005% of the vaccinated population. Simply put, the vaccinated have a minimal chance of dying of COVID, and scapegoating the unvaccinated for the breakthrough infections that do happen is little more than a crock of tribalistic nonsense.

Tribalism leads us into the crux of Chomsky’s argument, which is that societies should make a conscious decision completely ostracize those who refuse vaccination. It goes without saying that this is morally reprehensible by nature. You don’t get to deny people participation in society because they refuse to entertain your perverted, draconian public health theater.

Yet that’s exactly what the left are doing. They’re mandating vaccines and pushing vaccine passports, all while continuing to demand that you still wear a mask in public and regularly submit to testing. And if you take issue with any of it, surmise the left, it is because you are evil and unfeeling — therefore, you are expendable and ought to be treated as such.

And once you discount the perceived threat to the vaccinated as being purely political in nature, it lays bare the fact that this is the issue at hand. It’s the driving philosophy behind a huge chunk of the COVID agenda that the left are pushing, and it’s coming straight from the mouth of one of their idols.

https://thelibertyloft.com/2021/10/2...-noam-chomsky/

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Arlo

So, basically, 'death is irrelevant and no measure can or should be taken to reduce or alleviate it'. Heaven forbid governments or anything given the responsibility or authority of leadership 'realize that and move on'. That's more along the lines of a Covid worshipping death cult thing (as I've said here before).

Not that my perspective should make a dent on yours.

You are projecting again. what is irrelevant are my "feelings" on the "number of deaths I find acceptable."

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by MaDef

You are projecting again. what is irrelevant are my "feelings" on the "number of deaths I find acceptable."

Doesn't seem like projecting. You obviously find the current death rate/count quite acceptable (what's currently an unknown is how far you would continue to do so if it climbs) and you continuously try to present its relevance. I'll just take you as you present yourself. Nothing I can do about that. *ShruG*

Since we seem stalemated on the subject I should just silently SMH the next thousand or so times you remind everyone here that the percentages are acceptable yet the measures being taken are not.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The first pill designed to treat symptomatic Covid has been approved by the UK medicines regulator.

The tablet - molnupiravir - will be given twice a day to vulnerable patients recently diagnosed with the disease.

In clinical trials the pill, originally developed to treat flu, cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about half.

Health secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment was a "gamechanger" for the most frail and immunosuppressed.

In a statement he said: "Today is a historic day for our country, as the UK is now the first country in the world to approve an antiviral that can be taken at home for Covid."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59163899

That is good news, Jim. Honestly, it appeared everyone's hat was being placed on a vaccine only. The need for development of a drug after the fact of contracting COVID was not even a thought. Now it is! Wonderful! Thanks for posting!

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Honestly, it appeared everyone's hat was being placed on a vaccine only. The need for development of a drug after the fact of contracting COVID was not even a thought.

I really don't know how you reached that conclusion. Obviously a vaccine would the the first line defense to mitigate the virus and improved treatment would be the logical follow-up. I've never seen anyone suggest otherwise. What I have seen is the efficacy of some 'treatments' (drugs used for other ailments/species) questioned.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Arlo

Relax, `ol boy. I'm not trying to convince you that licking rats is a bad thing. I wouldn't dare waste my time on such.

Licking rats....I think I just burped up some chunky stuff reading that.