Yes! Why do you think that is?Ah yes, the FLU. That DISAPPEARED last year.
Dunno, you tell me.By the way, do you have trouble with maths?
It's a turbo-flu, it sends way more people to the hospital than "normal" flu: roughly 5% vs 1% for the flu we normally see every year.Anyone who really believes in the whole COVID story, and believes the response has been rational, should be able to answer a few simple questions:
1) What makes COVID so unique? The recovery rate from this disease is very high, so why exactly do we need to treat this so differently? In particular, how does COVID differ from flu?
Yeah, it seems these measures have been pushed way too far.2) Why exactly has LOCKDOWN never been used before, and is there clear evidence it really works in practice?
Of course not. The number of small businesses that have gone belly up and unenployment rates should be enough evidence. No?3) Can society tolerate enormous damage just to get rid of one pathogen?
We don't know, and now problems are starting to emerge. We're basically making an ultra large scale test with experimental drugs.4) How can we know how safe the vaccines are, given that they have not been tested for long, and are of a very novel design. I decided not to accept the vaccine, even though I am 71, and so slightly at risk.
It is really great to see you around again - I hope you are going to stay for a while!Hey everyone,
long time no speak :) Hope everyone is doing fine in these strange times.
The trouble is, they record deaths in a very peculiar way - at least in the UK. Everyone who tests positive for COVID and who dies within 28 days is considered to have died of COVID. It doesn't matter if they died from terminal cancer or by being run over by a bus!It's a turbo-flu, it sends way more people to the hospital than "normal" flu: roughly 5% vs 1% for the flu we normally see every year.
Also it has a higher mortality rate, although it's not as crazy as the numbers that have been flying around, especially last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_influenza_statistics_by_flu_season
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892/en/
I don't think there is any desire to invent sensible rules, the aim seems to be to damage society as much as possible.Yeah, it seems these measures have been pushed way too far.
Shutting down shops for months when they were already limiting the amount of customers inside, keeping distance between people, plus using masks and sanitizers.
Also denying physical activity outdoors and enforcing curfews. I mean, where I live you can still be fined for hundreds of euros if you get caught outside after 10:00pm, and it's not a high risk/red zone. It's getting kind of silly.
As usual the problem is how you use these tools. In Italy they have been used pretty badly, especially in the past 8-9 months.
Again, I don't think that those devising these rules are concerned about the damage to society - except perhaps in a negative way. Consider, people have been concentrated into the supermarkets, which may have actually had the effect of spreading the illness.Of course not. The number of small businesses that have gone belly up and unenployment rates should be enough evidence. No?
We don't know, and now problems are starting to emerge. We're basically making an ultra large scale test with experimental drugs.
If you check the paper by Ioannidis (published by WHO) that corrected the overblown death rate estimated by WHO itself, you'll notice that the real risks start at age 70 and higher (or for younger people with conditions that elevate such risks).
Cheers
Why the fixation with seeing ghosts I wonder?I don't think there is any desire to invent sensible rules, the aim seems to be to damage society as much as possible.
Perhaps because there was a meeting to discuss how to handle a possible pandemic just weeks before the real thing kicked off:Why the fixation with seeing ghosts I wonder?
Its not like societies throughout history aren't littered with examples of massive errors in judgement that don't tie off to some grand design. I wonder why its so hard to accept the simplest explanation here: that we hadn't faced a highly infectious pathogen in 100 years, were thusly unprepared, and made a bunch of suboptimal decisions. Amazes me this explanation is hand waved away without a second thought.
The legal proceedings launched by the family are just one of a number of cases across Europe being mounted against AstraZeneca.
The family's lawyer, Daniela Agnello, told Sky News: "The excellent state of health of Ms Turiaco, the absence of previous pathologies, the very short period of time between the administration of the vaccine, the appearance of the first illnesses and the very serious clinical picture and then death.
Australians who use the New Zealand travel bubble to fly onto the rest of the world could potentially face prison.
An amendment to legislation has been made which warns people they could face jail or hefty fines if they fly anywhere else overseas.
Cheers mate :)It is really great to see you around again - I hope you are going to stay for a while!
I think the paper by Ioannids does a splendid job of addressing these issues and finally puts the pandemic in perspective.The trouble is, they record deaths in a very peculiar way - at least in the UK. Everyone who tests positive for COVID and who dies within 28 days is considered to have died of COVID. It doesn't matter if they died from terminal cancer or by being run over by a bus!
I think there's a bit of that (coming from "high above") and a LOT of incompetence and conformism at the lower levels.I don't think there is any desire to invent sensible rules, the aim seems to be to damage society as much as possible.
Thanks for that. I was aware of that amazing study in which it proved impossible to transmit flu to healthy volunteers, despite the most drastic efforts. I was not aware that there were several studies with the same conclusion. This all came from a blog by a sceptical UK doctor, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (who googles easily).Oh, by the way just found this one. I admit it's quite interesting:
Just a quick reality check here.Vitamin D is reckoned to help build a strong immune system, and thus lowers the risk of a whole range of infections - which is why Big Pharma tries to downplay the importance of vitamins!
@ Malf, is that really how they talk in Middle Earth?Oh, by the way just found this one. I admit it's quite interesting:
Just a quick reality check here.
You present this point in a vacuum. No sourcing, but for argument's sake let's say your statement is true.
A benefit to a free market economy is competition. So, if one company (or industry in this case: big pharma) is exerting its force to alter consumer opinion in its favor, there will be other companies (or industries in this case: vitamins/supplements) who will use their resources to counter this narrative.
Funny eh? Takes a while to get used to :D@ Malf, is that really how they talk in Middle Earth?
You've missed the point.The value to the manufacturer of a vitamin pill is negligible in comparison with the value of selling a proprietary drug. To appreciate The clout of Big Pharma, you need to look at the fines imposed on them for proven offences:
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma
They pay those fines out of the profit they make from their drugs - and still make a good profit!
Only sending senior management to jail would stop the abuses of Big Pharma.
Maybe you should also get hold of Hope-Simpson's book.
David
Hmm... actually most of the top vitamin/nutriceutical brands are already BigPharma, such as Bayer, Pfizer, Glaxo and friends. (e.g. take Centrum Silver which is the one of the largest vitamin manufacturers in the US, owned by Pfizer). No need for a countering force :)The supplement/vitamin industry is big on an absolute basis and growing. They have money and ready access to additional capital which is all being used for growth. Its more than enough to provide a countering force to pharma's supposed negative influence on the value of, say, vitamin D.