Health New Coronavirus in China

I typically ride the subway to work 5 or 6 days a week. And then I bike home at night on Citibike. I haven't had so much as a sniffle in over a year. And I intend to rely on sound health and natural immunity rather than an experimental vaccine that even on the most charitable accounts does not prevent transmission.
 
Good grief. I lived (and worked) in Manhattan for five years, and even though the subway stop was literally on my corner I took it as little as possible after a while. The place is a petri dish for every microbe and virus known to man, including TB and venereal diseases. If I had to take it I did my best not to touch the railings, straps, etc. and used purell as soon as I exited.

That's not to mention the wonderful gentlemen who would take advantage of a really crowded train to press their erections against you as you were standing there helpless to move. I figured that one out too after the first time, when I had to send my coat to the dry cleaners. I was twenty four years old and wanted to vomit. If I felt anything I started asking at the top of my voice: who the hell is pressing his erection into me and then stomping my high heel into every male shoe near me. Men scattered somehow as if a canister of anthrax had just been released. It was like a stampede.

After a while I just started leaving an hour earlier and taking the bus.

Nights were worse. I was dosing in an almost empty car and opened my eyes to see a man hanging onto a strap in front of me masturbating. I swear to God that I was so innocent that in my befuddled mind I was wondering if he was holding a kitten. I poured a can a soda all over him and started yelling and running into the next car. After that I negotiated car service if I worked after 6PM.

Sometimes I wonder why I like men so much. I guess it's because I like the way their minds work in terms of analysis and interests. I can only talk about babies, children, the house, clothes and makeup, whatever, for so long.
 
First, it is the approach of our media to make this a political flashpoint. They do so by appealing to the vanity of NYers who define themselves against the (supposedly) unwashed rubes of the American heartland, who mainly supported Trump. Therefore, we have this neat little binary of the Trump base consisting of anti-vaxxers versus the enlightened cosmopolitans who support the govt, the media, big tech & big pharm on all points.

However, if Jovialis were actually to read the links I provided, he would see that The Defender is a publication of RFK Jr's Children's Health Defense and that the video is by Alliance for Natural Health International. Yes, believe it or not, there are still a few principled men of the Left standing. Men who uphold true science and do not kowtow to our corrupt ruling class.

What you call spreading misinformation, I call informed debate.

You don't make any sense. You come to this website, and are content selectively believing in genetics. You trust a direct-to-consumer company to genotype your DNA, and to tell you your ancestry. However, you are skeptical of the science behind the vaccine? Do you not realize they created the model for the vaccine because they were able whole-genome sequenced the virus? You think people like Francis Collins, the head scientist behind the Human Genome Project should not be trusted?
 
Even before Covid, anyone who thinks taking the New York subway isn't hazardous to your health is lacking in judgment.

Shall we start letting kids go to school without being vaccinated against Diphtheria, or Pertussis, or Polio, or Meningococcal Disease?

It makes no sense to me.
 
... maybe it has nothing to do with it, but since I got my first Covid-19 vaccine shot my problem solving abilities have skyrocketed,

... just sayin’ ... really :)
 
Well, I don't know about that, but my son's friend got Covid last year. He wasn't sick enough to go to the hospital, but he's young, healthy, and fit. Still, he lost his sense of smell and hasn't gotten it back after nine months. That's one of those "mild" cases. This is no freaking joke.
 
Last edited:
Ha! I received earlier today an infraction from Jovialis for insulting another member!!! I guess it is was him!!! I can hardly stop from falling off my chair laughing!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! This, from the man who calls anybody who questions the official Covid narrative an "ignorant coward"!!!

And Jovialis, you have gained nothing by pointing out my relative ignorance on the question of genetics! This is precisely why I frequent this cite, to learn from you and Angela and others.

But when it comes to Covid, you are WRONG!

Let me quote you at length a summary of all that had been done wrong so far, courtesy of PANDA, bracketing the question of vaccines ====

by Dr R. Iván Iriarte, MD, MS
Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 global pandemic, many issues have arisen that run contrary to historical precedents and known and practiced public health principles of the last century. This article discusses some of these issues: assumptions made without evidence, the incorrect case definition, PCR diagnostic test problems, the impact of these two factors on morbidity and mortality estimates, school closures, facemasks, lockdowns and their effects on children.

Assumptions about SARS-CoV-2 made without evidence – the creation of panic
Panic has been spread among the general population since the beginning of the pandemic, based on the idea of “asymptomatic transmission”. This idea was strongly influenced by a case report in Germany, in which an infection was attributed to contact with an asymptomatic person (1). Further investigation revealed that this person had actually been sick and had been suppressing her symptoms with medication (2). The original misleading paper was never rectified. Based on this, and limited case reports from China, the “experts” began to promote the idea that this virus behaves differently to other respiratory viruses. All prior knowledge indicates that epidemics are not driven by asymptomatic individuals (3, 4). However, the decision-makers in this epidemic determined that this does not apply to COVID-19 and every single individual we encounter could be an infectious person capable of killing us. This is contrary to conventional reasoning in medicine and public health. Decisions have always been based on prior knowledge, until there is compelling evidence to disprove what we thought we knew. Articles in the literature have found that secondary transmission by asymptomatic individuals is very low (5, 6, 7). In a cohort study with a very large sample size, no one became infected among 1,174 contacts of 300 asymptomatic subjects who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (8).
Another assumption promoted by the “experts” in this epidemic is the idea that the general population would be immunologically “naive” to this virus and thus 100% susceptible to develop the disease. This is again not consistent with previous knowledge about human immunity to viral agents. Cross-immunity is a well-known fact. It is not reasonable to assume that the entire population is immunologically susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, when in fact it is very likely that many individuals have at least partial immunity to the virus due to prior infection with similar viruses or agents with similar antigenic properties. There are several studies showing that individuals have immunity to SARS-CoV-2 by T-Cell mediated mechanisms (9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
Problems with the “case” definition
Over centuries of epidemic management, a case always constituted a sick individual who presented a series of established clinical criteria, confirmed – if deemed necessary – by a laboratory test. In the COVID-19 pandemic, a “case” has been redefined as anyone with a positive PCR test result, independent of clinical signs and symptoms. There is no historical precedent for defining a symptomless infection with a respiratory virus as a medical case.
The practice has been to report “new cases” every day based on positive test results and including asymptomatic individuals. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of epidemiology knows that this is not how the incidence (new cases) of an illness is measured. Only the prevalence of positive test results is being measured every day. As we will see below, these results do not necessarily relate to infectiousness. The number of reported positive test results depends on the number of tests administered. When a high volume of tests are being administered, there will be a high number of positives. These positive test results are not “new medical cases” with the disease.
The correct way to estimate the disease incidence is to have doctors count and report subjects who are ill with characteristic symptoms and are then confirmed as COVID-19 cases through a positive test result. Incidence of hospitalizations should be reported in the same manner.
Problems with the PCR test
There are serious problems with the use of the PCR test on asymptomatic individuals (14). There is extensive literature that shows that the PCR test is not a “gold standard” for defining a case of disease and that it can have a high percentage of false positive results (15, 16, 17). It remains a well-known epidemiological principle that even with a highly sensitive and specific test, if the test is administered in a population with low disease or infection prevalence, there will be a relatively high percentage of false positive results.
This becomes even more problematic in light of the studies showing that at a high number of amplification cycles (as have been used during this pandemic) the PCR test detects RNA fragments that do not represent a viable virus (18, 19, 20,21, 22). Authorities managing this epidemic have been identifying individuals who are healthy, and do not present a risk to the community.
The research paper used by the World Health Organization (WHO) at the beginning of 2020 to establish the PCR test as the primary criterion to diagnose COVID-19 was written by Corman, Drosten and several others (23). An independent panel of scientists found this work to contain a large number of flaws in its methodology and in the validity of the results. In addition, it was accepted for publication in a most irregular manner without the standard peer-review (24).
In a notice written on January 13, 2021 and published on January 20, 2021, the WHO confirmed that PCR tests should not be used as the sole method of diagnosing COVID-19; they should only be used where clinical signs and symptoms are present, and they can yield false positive results at high amplification cycles (25). The package inserts accompanying PCR test kits, state that the test should be administered only to patients with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (26, 27).
Problems with estimates of morbidity and mortality indicators
It is evident that COVID-19 “cases” are being defined incorrectly. The logical conclusion is that there may be major errors in all reports of incidence, deaths and hospitalizations attributed to this disease. In the United States, anyone who dies with a recent positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 (up to 30 days prior to death) is counted as a COVID-19 death. CDC guidelines published in April 2020 encourage the reporting of COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death in circumstances where it played a role in the death, even without laboratory confirmation (28, 29). It is unclear to what extent this was done in other countries as well. It is very important to investigate this matter, as the reported number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 is likely to be inflated.
Mitigation measures
World leaders believe – without evidence – that the way to mitigate the effects of the epidemic consists of imposing confinement measures, the generalized use of masks, restrictions on social activities, restrictions on mobility, business closures, curfews, school closures and more, including contact tracing and the quarantining of asymptomatic individuals. In the past the WHO established that the latter two measures should not be used under any circumstances (30). These measures were theorised to be effective without any evidence, and the potential harms caused by these policies were not calculated or taken into account. This goes against the fundamental principles of public health and medicine, which require the implementation of any intervention to be supported by evidence of its effectiveness. Any intervention should attempt to minimize the impact on the population’s daily life. The stated goal of all public health policy is to reduce total harm to the population, while considering a wide range of health, economic and social factors. The goal is not to reduce harm from a single disease only.
School closures – children are “granny killers”
The impact the epidemic response has had on children is one of the greatest disgraces in history. At the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, it was established that children mostly have a mild or asymptomatic presentation of the disease. However, decision-makers relentlessly promoted the idea that children, although they rarely get sick, are capable of infecting others. This unsupported idea was enough to order school closures and keep children away from their grandparents, as if they were potential “granny killers”. Studies show that children do not significantly transmit infection (31). Yet we already see the adverse effects that confinement and school closures have had on the mental health of children and adolescents (32). Sweden’s experience demonstrates that keeping schools open does not result in any excess morbidity or mortality in children or teachers (33). A recent article found that adults living in households with children actually have a lower risk of getting sick with COVID-19 than adults who live in households without children (34).
Mask use
There are many studies that show that masking is not effective in preventing infection transmission, except possibly in settings where there are sick individuals (35, 36, 37, 38, 39). A recent document published by the WHO – in December 2020 – states that there is very inconsistent evidence proving the effectiveness of mask-wearing in the community for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, including COVID-19 (40). When we compare the epidemic curves in places with and without mask mandates, the curves look similar. In fact, we observe a higher number of infections per 100,000 of the population in places with mask mandates (41).
The most important argument against the compulsory use of masks is simply the lack of evidence that anyone without symptoms walking around the community will be a contagious person. In public health management, sometimes it is appropriate to impose a certain measure upon an individual, for the common good, when there is evidence that the individual represents a major risk to the rest of the population. It is not acceptable, however, to restrict or impose a behavior on individuals without evidence that the individual represents a significant risk to the community, and that this measure will not harm the individual. It is very unlikely that an asymptomatic person is infectious. Therefore, it is unjustified to require everyone to wear a mask in the community, even if masks have shown some benefit when worn by individuals with symptoms. This argument becomes even stronger when we take the potential adverse effects of masks into consideration. These include symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath and other problems including psychological impact, acne, respiratory infections and dental problems (42, 43, 44, 45).
Lockdowns
“Without lockdowns, the situation would have been worse”. This is the claim of lockdown advocates. However, this is the equivalent of administering treatment to a patient and claiming that despite a negative outcome the treatment is effective, because without the treatment the patient’s condition would have been even worse. Never in past epidemics or pandemics have lockdowns been imposed as a mitigation strategy over a large area or for a long period of time. Studies have shown that lockdowns cause unintended negative consequences to social well-being, mental health, physical health, mobility, employment, education, and the economy at large while undermining fundamental rights. Lockdown-induced deaths occur in younger people, causing an increase in total years of life lost. The comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators (46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56). A simple cost-benefit analysis would clearly show that lockdown harms greatly outweigh any claimed benefits.
Summary
It is inexplicable that world governments and the “experts” advising them have chosen to completely ignore this information as if it did not exist, and persist in doing the following:

  1. Reporting “new cases” on a daily basis, using only PCR test results.
  2. Doing mass PCR testing, including asymptomatic individuals.
  3. Imposing quarantines on asymptomatic individuals based on a positive test result or history of exposure.
  4. Requiring the use of masks despite lack of evidence to support this mandate.
  5. Insisting that lockdowns are the way to mitigate the pandemic.
A course-correction in the management of this epidemic is urgently needed. The response to the COVID-19 epidemic should be based on reliable data and sound public health principles that have been practiced successfully for over a century. The following measures should be adopted immediately:

  1. Provide the public with accurate information about COVID-19 risk in order to reduce the fear.
  2. Cease the mass administration of diagnostic tests on asymptomatic individuals.
  3. Define cases according to clinical criteria – confirmed by laboratory tests. The determination of a case should be the decision of a duly licensed medical doctor.
  4. Use the case definition listed above to determine indicators such as new cases (incidence), hospitalizations and mortality.
  5. Establish measures to protect vulnerable individuals.
  6. Encourage the population to take hygiene measures such as hand washing, covering the mouth when coughing and staying at home when sick.
  7. Open schools, businesses and travel.
These measures are described in a published document by Pandemics Data & Analytics titled: “Protocol for Reopening Society” (57).
References


  1. Roche, C. et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany. NEJM. March 5, 2020.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120970/pdf/NEJMc2001468.pdf
  2. ICSL (International Consortium of Scientists in Life). Corman-Drosten Review Report. https://cormandrostenreview.com/cease-and-desist-order-fuellmich-drosten/
  3. Fauci, A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6k...9wUfg7YCNNr3bT_lWlLyiutZ_tBZKwvY1EDO9G17LQ2eg
  4. Patrozou, E. Mermel, LA. Does Influenza Transmission Occur from Asymptomatic Infection or Prior to Symptom Onset? Public Health Reports. 2009. Vol 124.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646474/pdf/phr124000193.pdf
  5. Gao, M. et al. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Respiratory Medicine 169 (2020) 106026.https://www.resmedjournal.com/article/S0954-6111(20)30166-9/fulltext
  6. Madewell, Z. et al. Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2020; 3(12).https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
  7. Pollock, AM., Lancaster, J. Asymptomatic Transmission of COVID-9. BMJ 2020;371 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851
  8. Cao, S et al. Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nature Communications. (2020) 11:5917.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
  9. Bonifacius, A. et al. COVID-19 immune signatures reveal stable antiviral T cell function despite declining humoral responses. Immunity. 54, 340-354, 2021.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2021.01.008
  10. Doshi, P. (Ed). Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? 2020; 370:m3563 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
  11. Echeverría G. et al. Pre-existing T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in unexposed healthy controls in Ecuador, as detected with a COVID-19 Interferon-Gamma Release Assay. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.034
  12. Le Bert, N. et al. Different pattern of pre-existing SARS-COV-2 specific T cell immunity in SARS-recovered and uninfected individuals. (2020).https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.26.115832
  13. Tarke A. et al. Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases. Cell Reports Medicine 2, February 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100204
  14. DeGraw, D. et al. COVID Tests Scientifically Fraudulent, Epidemic of “False Positives”. Global Research. January 12, 2021.https://www.globalresearch.ca/natio...y-fraudulent-epidemic-false-positives/5720271
  15. Cohen, A. N., & Kessel, B. (2020, May 20). False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v2
  16. Cohen, A. N., & Kessel, B., Milgroom, M. (2020, August). Diagnosing COVID-19 infection: the danger of over-reliance on positive test resultshttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v4
  17. Surkova E. False Positive Results (2020).https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanres/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7.pdf
  18. Bullard, J. et al. Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Diagnostic Samples. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020: 71 (15 November). https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/10/2663/5842165
  19. Dahdouh, E. et al. Ct values from SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR assays should not be used as direct estimates of viral load. Journal of Infection. 2020. October 24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33131699/
  20. Jaafar, R. Aherfi, S. Wurtz, N. Grimaldier, C Hoang, VT. Colson, P. Raoult, D. La Scola, B. Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 29 September, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491
  21. Jefferson, T., & Heneghan, G. el al. (2020) Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test for COVID-19? https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/
  22. Santos, Chiesa. PCR Positives. What Do They Mean? (Sept. 2020)https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PCR-test-Infectivity-Sep-2020.pdf
  23. Corman VM. et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-n-CoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. Vol 25, Issue 3, 23 Jan, 2020.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
  24. ICSL (International Consortium of Scientists in Life). Corman-Drosten Review Report. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
  25. Information notice for IVD Users 2020/05 (2021).https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
  26. Gnomegen COVID-19 Digital PCR Detection Kit. Instructions for Use. P. 15.https://www.fda.gov/media/137895/download
  27. LBL-0109-04-900251-EUA-CE-Smart-Detect (P. 26).http://i8sit3w4v3z1h99oi1gmrx61-wpe...ect-SARS-CoV-2-rRT-PCR-Kit-Package-Insert.pdf
  28. Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance. Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). Report No. 3. April 2020.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf
  29. McGowan, J. Are COVID Death Rates Comparing Apples and Oranges?Mathematical Software. January 25, 2021. http://wordpress.jmcgowan.com/wp/are-covid-death-numbers-comparing-apples-and-oranges/
  30. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza (2019)https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/
  31. Lee, B. et al. COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child is Not to Blame. Pediatrics August 2020, 146 (2) e2020004879; https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-004879
  32. Singh, S. et al. Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations. Psychiatry Research. 293 (2020).https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016517812031725X?via=ihub
  33. Ludvigsson, J. et al. Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden. NEJM. February 18, 2021.https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670
  34. Wood, R. et al. Sharing a household with children and risk of COVID-19: a study of over 300,000 adults living in healthcare worker households in Scotland.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20196428v2
  35. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Mask Facts. September 2020. https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
  36. Bundgaard, H., Bundgaard, JS. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Danish Mask Wearers. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 Nov 18.https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
  37. Meehan, J. An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful. November, 2020.https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/post/...masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful
  38. Swiss Policy Research: Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence (October 25, 2020). https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
  39. Xiao, J. et al. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. CDC PolicyReview. Vol 26:5. May, 2020 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/2...GLEFTIbzV3atyHqop9DqK-rhx7itJ0SY3eZm5erwTZw6g
  40. Mask use in the context of COVID-19. Interim guidance. 1 December 2020.https://www.who.int/publications/i/...of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
  41. Horowitz, D. Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates. https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horo...tates-shows-greater-spread-with-mask-mandates
  42. Rancourt, D. Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349518677
  43. Rosner, E. Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19. Journal of Infectious Disease Epidemiology. 2020, 6:130. https://clinmedjournals.org/article...ases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide
  44. Schwarz, S. et al. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: First results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children.https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v2
  45. Techasatian, L. et al. The Effects of the Face Mask on the Skin Underneath: A Prospective Survey During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Primary Care and Community Health. 2020. 11: 1-7.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2150132720966167
  46. AIER (American Institute of Economic Research). Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/
  47. COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing (2020). https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/covid_recovery_ireland_white_paper_-_17th_nov.pdf
  48. Chaudhry, R. et al. A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. E Clinical Medicine 25 (2020) 100464. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
  49. Great Barrington Declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/
  50. Johnston, L. UK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist says (2020). https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...ws-lockdown-mistake-second-wave-Boris-Johnson
  51. Kulldorff, M. American Institute of Economic Research (2020).https://www.aier.org/article/twelve-principles-of-public-health/
  52. McClintock, T. Lockdowns are killing us. Mountain Democrat. February, 2021.https://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/guest-column-lockdowns-are-killing-us/
  53. Meunier, T. Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic (2020).https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
  54. Norway ‘could have controlled infection without lockdown’: health chief.https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/no...olled-infection-without-lockdown-health-chief
  55. Schneider, P. Canadian Health Expert: Cost of Lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than benefits. January 15, 2021. https://phillipschneider.com/canadi...e-at-least-10-times-higher-than-the-benefits/
  56. PanData: https://www.pandata.org/
  57. Protocol for reopening society. December, 2020.https://www.pandata.org/about/protocol-for-reopening-society/

 
Hey Jovialis!!! Open up your mind!!! Check out this video!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WuUVds5HzVMh/

In particular, let me quote for you at give or take 30:00 . . . .

"I have a problem with universal vaccination with exploratory vaccines. It's just unbelievably reckless . . . . Any physician worth his salt knows you shouldn't be doing this."

Really, Jovialis!!!! Should we really be vaccinating the ENTIRE POPULATION without regard for heterogeneous body types, without hedging our bets???

Please defend proposition of universal vaccination with experimental mRNA vaccine. In particular, for healthy individuals, male or female, under the age of 50.
 

Watch this video instead.

Also:

By September 2020, Yeadon’s statements were attracting attention beyond Twitter. At the time, a movement had emerged in Britain against lockdowns and other restrictions meant to curb the disease. He co-authored a lengthy article on a website called Lockdown Sceptics. It declared that the “pandemic as an event in the UK is essentially complete.” And, “There is no biological principle that leads us to expect a second wave.”Britain soon entered a much more deadly second wave.
...

According to Yeadon’s LinkedIn profile, he joined Pfizer in 1995; the company had a large operation then in Sandwich in southern England. He rose to become a vice president and head of allergy and respiratory research.


Many former colleagues say they are baffled by his transformation.


Mark Treherne, chairman of Talisman Therapeutics in Cambridge, England, said he overlapped with Yeadon at Pfizer for about two years and sometimes had coffee with him. “He always seemed knowledgeable, intelligible, a good scientist. We were both trained as pharmacologists … so we had something in common.”


“I obviously disagree with Mike and his recent views,” he said. Treherne’s company is researching brain inflammation, which he said could be triggered by coronaviruses. “This does not sound like the guy I knew 20 years ago.”


Moschos, the ex-colleague who took issue with one of Yeadon’s tweets, said he considered him a mentor when they worked together at the drugmaker from 2008 to 2011. More recently, Moschos has been researching whether it’s possible to test for COVID-19 with breath samples. He said Yeadon’s views are “a huge disappointment.” He recounted hearing Yeadon in a radio interview last year.


“There was a tone in his voice that was nothing like I ever remembered of Mike,” Moschos said. “It was very angry, very bitter.”


John LaMattina, a former president of Pfizer Global Research and Development, also knew Yeadon. “His group was very successful and discovered a number of compounds that entered early clinical development,” LaMattina told Reuters in an email. He said Yeadon and his team were let go by Pfizer, however, when the company made the strategic decision to exit the therapeutic area they were researching.


LaMattina said he had lost touch with Yeadon in recent years. Shown links to Yeadon’s video declaring the pandemic over and a copy of his petition to halt COVID-19 clinical trials, LaMattina replied: “This is all news to me and a bit of a shock. This seems out of character for the person I knew.”

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

This is interesting, I wonder if he is spreading disinformation on the vaccine because he is bitter about getting laid off. Of course money from the anti-vaxxer groups is probably an incentive for him to do this as well.
 
Talk about over-reaction...The FDA has paused distribution of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because 6 people out of 6.5 million shots.

Anybody every look up the side effects of aspirin, or ibuprofen?

It's ridiculous imo when the more contagious and serious South African variant is spreading across the country at breakneck speed.

This is just the typical political, no guts attitude.

Our so-called political leaders make mistake after mistake after mistake.
 
Talk about over-reaction...The FDA has paused distribution of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because 6 people out of 6.5 million shots.

Anybody every look up the side effects of aspirin, or ibuprofen?

It's ridiculous imo when the more contagious and serious South African variant is spreading across the country at breakneck speed.

This is just the typical political, no guts attitude.

Our so-called political leaders make mistake after mistake after mistake.

The policy has been an obstacle to the acceptance of vaccination by the general population. Some European Union countries have decided to raise suspicions about the side effects of the Astrazeneca / Oxford vaccine because some vaccinees would have had thrombosis as a side effect of the vaccination. However, the percentage rates of vaccinated people who had thrombosis among those vaccinated does not differ from the rate of this event in the general population and the chance that a healthy individual has thrombosis inside on an airplane on a cruise flight is much higher. Apparently the success of the vaccination campaign in the United Kingdom combined with the slow vaccination in continental Europe has caused sequels in international relations and who is in the middle of this fight is suffering: ‘the people who want and need to be vaccinated.
 
I'm happy for you. Congratulations Salento (y)


Thank you Duarte. ... Soon it will be your turn.

tvRyShM.jpg


... thanks to Bacchus too !
 

Watch this video instead.

Also:



This is interesting, I wonder if he is spreading disinformation on the vaccine because he is bitter about getting laid off. Of course money from the anti-vaxxer groups is probably an incentive for him to do this as well.

It?s really depressing to see how much of a hot topic COVID is. I wish the cities the best of luck in fighting the virus.
 
What we have to ask ourselves is what the hell is going on in Europe? Deaths 1Million/pop

1-Czechia-2.632
2-Hungary-2.543
3-San Marino-2.530
4-Bosnia-2.341
5-Montenegro-2.237
6-Bulgaria-2.153
7-North Macedonia-2.075
8-Belgium-2.030
9-Slovenia-1.992
8-Slovakia-1.991
9-Italy-1.913
10-UK-1.865
11-Portugal-1.664
12-Spain-1.641
13-Poland-1.603
14-Croatia-1.577
15-Andorra-1.564
16-France-1.526
17-Liechtenstein-1.465
18-Lithuania-1.385
19-Moldova-1.357
20-Sweden-1.352
21-Romania-1.338

Etc etc

best countries

1-Norway-129
2-Denmark-421
3-Serbia-671
4-Russia-715
5-Estonia-802
6-Albania-811
7-Greece-880
8-Ukraine-893
9-Malta-911
10-Germany-950

América

1-USA-1.738
2-Brazil-1.694

And the most astonishing of all these data

1-China-3 deaths/1 Million population

Asia, Africa and Australia seem to be doing very well and yet the developed world is a real disaster. Are they lying? or are we doing so badly? Are the figures for China, India, Africa and South America credible?
 
of course.


Well, I don't see Coronavirus showing up in the U.S. and Britain, and we eat a lot of meat.

The point is you can't eat wild animals which are known to harbor terrible viruses, like snake (in this case, they think), or marmots (source of the plague), or monkeys (probably the source of Ebola). The Chinese eat all sorts of wild animals which are not consumed in the west.

Plus, the hygiene there is horrendous. I have a number of very well traveled friends who have been to China, and, having been warned, they brought canned food with them. They said they were so thankful people had told them to bring it, because after seeing the meat markets and pig pens and chicken runs they were appalled.

Chickens, for example, are not clean animals under the best of circumstances. Didn't SARS start in fowl? My mother treated them like toxic waste, soaking them in a salt water brine before cooking them and bleaching all the surfaces which came into contact with them. On her farm, they were handled outdoors, for that very reason. She had lots of rules like that, probably from growing up on a farm: take your shoes off when you come in, wash your hands well as soon as you come indoors, use salt water or vinegar and water to disinfect surfaces, never sneeze into the air, use a handkerchief or at least cough into your sleeve, etc. I follow them all.

Turns out she was even right that your immune system gets weaker if you get suddenly cold. That one I didn't believe, but she was right about that too.

I wouldn't last long in countries without good hygiene. I couldn't even deal with Mexico; got really ill both times I went. So, I've never felt the slightest interest in going to some of these more "exotic" places. Turns out I was right. Imagine being trapped there while all this is going on.

Thank you for quoting me, but some attribution would have been nice. :)

BTW, China still has the gall to deny it started in China. As if every flu and respiratory disease every single year can't also be traced back to China.

I remember that in studying Victorian England at university, the point was made over and over again that the two biggest reasons why humans started to live longer were antibiotics and HYGIENE. Some countries still haven't gotten the message.
 
What we have to ask ourselves is what the hell is going on in Europe? Deaths 1Million/pop

1-Czechia-2.632
2-Hungary-2.543
3-San Marino-2.530
4-Bosnia-2.341
5-Montenegro-2.237
6-Bulgaria-2.153
7-North Macedonia-2.075
8-Belgium-2.030
9-Slovenia-1.992
8-Slovakia-1.991
9-Italy-1.913
10-UK-1.865
11-Portugal-1.664
12-Spain-1.641
13-Poland-1.603
14-Croatia-1.577
15-Andorra-1.564
16-France-1.526
17-Liechtenstein-1.465
18-Lithuania-1.385
19-Moldova-1.357
20-Sweden-1.352
21-Romania-1.338

Etc etc

best countries

1-Norway-129
2-Denmark-421
3-Serbia-671
4-Russia-715
5-Estonia-802
6-Albania-811
7-Greece-880
8-Ukraine-893
9-Malta-911
10-Germany-950

América

1-USA-1.738
2-Brazil-1.694

And the most astonishing of all these data

1-China-3 deaths/1 Million population

Asia, Africa and Australia seem to be doing very well and yet the developed world is a real disaster. Are they lying? or are we doing so badly? Are the figures for China, India, Africa and South America credible?

As far as the U.S. and Britain are concerned, both the number of cases and the number of deaths are plummeting, thanks to the all out push from the drug companies, and the willingness of most people to get vaccinated.

Europeans, in my experience, are suckers for every conspiracy theory that floats to the surface, and true to form they're much more unwilling to take the vaccine. I feel terrible for the poor people who are still getting really sick and dying, but the stupidity of both the bureaucrats and individuals can often prove fatal.

I don't think India is doing well, and is probably doing worse than reported given their record keeping is dodgy at the best of times. Australia, being so close to China, monitors their internet traffic very closely. At the first signs they shut their borders to China, something which the almighty WHO counseled against. Other travelers were immediately quarantined. It helps they're an island.

I haven't seen anyone completely explain Africa, other than that there wasn't the massive traffic flow that there is between European countries and the U.S.

As for China, well, if you're willing to take any infected person and throw them into wards lying side by side infecting each other, in effect letting them all die, and doing the same by mandating that the sick stay in enforced lock down with their families, and then throwing anyone not wearing a mask into jail, even using drones to catch them on the street and using police to tackle grannies who forgot their masks, yeah, you can get the numbers way down. Also, while continuing to allow their people to fly all over the world, people in China were barely allowed to leave their block, much less take internal flights.

When you don't have to worry about people's human rights, much less due process under the law, you can control your populace's behavior pretty well. In the late 1800s and the early 20th century China had a huge problem with opiate addiction. Their solution? They summarily executed not only all dealers, but all users as well. End of addiction problem. I like the outcome, but I'd never advocate their choice as to the solution.
 
In Europe there is no fear of vaccination, what happens is that there is a shortage of vaccines due to the non-compliance of pharmaceutical companies and the mismanagement of governments who have failed to explain that complications after vaccination are not a cause for concern.

Most western countries have done very badly, compared to the Asian countries it seems that we are the third world. They are much more used to fight against this kind of virus (you only have to see the figures of Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines or Indonesia), there is no doubt that they are much more disciplined than us (and I don't think that, except in China, it is a political question but behavior and education).

As far as vaccination is concerned, I don't think we will solve anything until the whole world has achieved herd immunity. France and Spain each have more than 80 million tourists a year. This week 21 Uruguayan shearers have tested positive for Covid in Spain despite having negative certificates. They say they have been infected here, but they have tested positive for the Brazilian variant which is apparently more contagious and lethal than even the British variant. It will be impossible for us to control millions of tourists and workers unless we isolate Europe from the rest of the world for four or five years.
 
Europeans, in my experience, are suckers for every conspiracy theory that floats to the surface, and true to form they're much more unwilling to take the vaccine.

That's a very broad and unsubstantiated statement. I suppose that you are referring to the situation in France. But Europeans are not all French, far from it! Even French-speaking Belgium is very different in many regards, including Covid vaccine intention. FYI, this is the Ipsos survey about the intention to get vaccinated by country (you can hover over the graph here to see the percentages). 67% of Americans, Germans and Swedes intend to get vaccinated, against 'only' 59% of French (that's only 8% lower). But other West European countries have higher intentions to get vaccinated than the US: 85% in UK, 72% in Spain, 71% in the Netherlands, 70% in Belgium. Well, except Italy (66%), which is about the same as Germany and the US.

Ipsos_Covid_vaccine.png
 

This thread has been viewed 686883 times.

Back
Top