CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Elysium said:
This is an interesting insight into the conditions that allowed vaccine manufacturers to contribute to censorship. Encouraging opposition to vaccine mandates to be falsely labelled as anti-vax:
https://unherd.com/2023/11/moderna-is-spying-on-yo...
Minor details. Nothing to see here etc.https://unherd.com/2023/11/moderna-is-spying-on-yo...
Unherd said:
None of the reports that we have seen makes any attempt to dispute the claims made. Rather the claims are automatically deemed “misinformation” if they encourage vaccine hesitancy. We approached Moderna for comment, but they didn’t respond.
“What often flies under the banner of combating disinformation is, in this case, nothing but corporate public relations, trying to spin public narratives in directions favorable to the corporation’s interests,” said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist, and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Does anyone really want to live under a regime where their social media feed is essentially curated by government or by multinational corporate interests that stand to profit, influencing opinion on these issues?”
“What often flies under the banner of combating disinformation is, in this case, nothing but corporate public relations, trying to spin public narratives in directions favorable to the corporation’s interests,” said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist, and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Does anyone really want to live under a regime where their social media feed is essentially curated by government or by multinational corporate interests that stand to profit, influencing opinion on these issues?”
Vanden Saab said:
irc said:
jameswills said:
There is no real evidence that this actually happens. Go back to Covid 2020, I can tell you of many stories where wives or husbands “had Covid” but never passed it to their spouse. Or children to adults or vice versa. I think this “infectiousness” is a bit of a myth.
Myth? Not for us it wasn't. Eight people at lunch. One person with Covid passed it to everyone else in the room. This was well into the pandemic. All were vaccinated. So IME Covid was infectious and the vaccine didn't prevent infection or transmission.
If they had identified the 10% who were capable of infecting almost everybody else in the first 3 months and paid them handsomely to isolate (and by isolate I mean stay at home so if you are infectious you would only infect one of two others) you could have avoided the whole mess of the last 3 years and everybody else could have carried on as normal.
You would have been able to hold the prevalence at a level that the NHS could deal with while still allowing for an almost normal existence.
As in actual source (not Auntie Doris on facebook)
If you can this (as in if not blocked by the nutter algorithm
)Edited by James6112 on Monday 20th November 17:48
“ I won’t be catching Covid “ I said on these very pages a few years back.?
Well I’m delighted - but not surprised to advise that I got through the pandemic unscathed. I said I wouldn’t catch Covid and sure enough despite being unvaccinated, never wearing a mask, travelling extensively and mixing freely I am here to tell the tale.
Alive, well and larger than life. I made the decision not to catch it and stuck to that.
Exercise, good nutrition and a positive mindset. That’s what worked.
Well I’m delighted - but not surprised to advise that I got through the pandemic unscathed. I said I wouldn’t catch Covid and sure enough despite being unvaccinated, never wearing a mask, travelling extensively and mixing freely I am here to tell the tale.
Alive, well and larger than life. I made the decision not to catch it and stuck to that.
Exercise, good nutrition and a positive mindset. That’s what worked.
James6112 said:
Vanden Saab said:
irc said:
jameswills said:
There is no real evidence that this actually happens. Go back to Covid 2020, I can tell you of many stories where wives or husbands “had Covid” but never passed it to their spouse. Or children to adults or vice versa. I think this “infectiousness” is a bit of a myth.
Myth? Not for us it wasn't. Eight people at lunch. One person with Covid passed it to everyone else in the room. This was well into the pandemic. All were vaccinated. So IME Covid was infectious and the vaccine didn't prevent infection or transmission.
If they had identified the 10% who were capable of infecting almost everybody else in the first 3 months and paid them handsomely to isolate (and by isolate I mean stay at home so if you are infectious you would only infect one of two others) you could have avoided the whole mess of the last 3 years and everybody else could have carried on as normal.
You would have been able to hold the prevalence at a level that the NHS could deal with while still allowing for an almost normal existence.
As in actual source (not Auntie Doris on facebook)
If you can this (as in if not blocked by the nutter algorithm
)Edited by James6112 on Monday 20th November 17:48
Nature said:
Endo’s early analysis estimated that around 10% of cases in countries outside China accounted for 80% of secondary infections up to the end of February2.
2. - Endo, A. et al. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 67 (2020).http://web.archive.org/web/20210226091857/https://...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retriev...
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-67/v3
Nature said:
A study of aerosol emissions from nearly 200 healthy people, published this month8, lends weight to the idea that biological differences could affect transmission of the virus. The measurements showed that 20% of the study participants accounted for 80% of the aerosol particles emitted, and that people who were older or overweight produced more aerosols than others.
8. - Edwards, D. A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021830118 (2021).https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021830118
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/8/e2021830118
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33563754/
I note the whitewash inquiry is going the way we predicted here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67451423
Regarding lockdown: "My view is, with the benefit of hindsight, we went a bit too late on the first wave," Whitty says.
Surprise surprise............
Regarding lockdown: "My view is, with the benefit of hindsight, we went a bit too late on the first wave," Whitty says.
Surprise surprise............
Vanden Saab said:
Nope, firstly the at risk are a larger group and secondly they would have to isolate for the rest of their lives. You want to limit the number of those infected at any one time not pretend you can stop people being infected.
No the at risk numbers were tiny. The risk to those under 70 was miniscule.NOr would they have to isolate for life. That is not how a virus epidemic works. It will soon convert to less dangerous variants (even if we accept the IFR was greater than the Flu, which not everyone does) and it does that by being spread amongst those who are less at risk.
The fact that all we know about pandemics was thrown out of the window on this one is of itself cause for concern is it not?
Vanden Saab said:
Jasandjules said:
Vanden Saab said:
If they had identified the 10% who were capable of infecting almost everybody else in the first 3 months and paid them handsomely to isolate (and by isolate I mean stay at home so if you are infectious you would only infect one of two others) you could have avoided the whole mess of the last 3 years and everybody else could have carried on as normal.
You would have been able to hold the prevalence at a level that the NHS could deal with while still allowing for an almost normal existence.
Or you know, just get those most at risk to isolate. Would have saved a few hundred billion.You would have been able to hold the prevalence at a level that the NHS could deal with while still allowing for an almost normal existence.
The simple truth is that, once COVID existed, it became inevitable that everyone would be exposed to it at some point.
The concept of lockdown served two purposes:
1. To slow the epidemic down to avoid overwhelming the NHS to ensure everyone affected had reasonable access to healthcare.
2. To buy time for the most vulnerable until they could be offered a viable vaccine.
However, as you have said, the second one was never really possible. You can reduce infections by reducing contacts, but you can't prevent them.
You can slow the epidemic through strict NPI's like lockdown, or by building immunity in the population as advocated by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
We eventually followed the Great Barrington Declaration approach when we ended lockdown. The massive exit wave we experience was essentially the same as the massive wave we would have experienced in Spring 2020 if we had followed their advice.
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Unfortunately, the law decided the Govt did have the right to do this. However, as Lord Sumption rightly observed, we almost certainly reached the point where there was a moral justification to break these immoral laws: And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
https://x.com/TalkTV/status/1398191184997228544?s=...
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Well said. And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
In fact I would rather take my chances with any disease going than be subjected to that form of government. Never again.
Jasandjules said:
Vanden Saab said:
Nope, firstly the at risk are a larger group and secondly they would have to isolate for the rest of their lives. You want to limit the number of those infected at any one time not pretend you can stop people being infected.
No the at risk numbers were tiny. The risk to those under 70 was miniscule.NOr would they have to isolate for life. That is not how a virus epidemic works. It will soon convert to less dangerous variants (even if we accept the IFR was greater than the Flu, which not everyone does) and it does that by being spread amongst those who are less at risk.
The fact that all we know about pandemics was thrown out of the window on this one is of itself cause for concern is it not?
Elysium said:
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Unfortunately, the law decided the Govt did have the right to do this. However, as Lord Sumption rightly observed, we almost certainly reached the point where there was a moral justification to break these immoral laws: And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
https://x.com/TalkTV/status/1398191184997228544?s=...
What you have to do is make a protest and get a few people to counter protest and they will get carted off and you will be In the right , see also the Hamas Palestine protests..
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Some of us did this first time round.And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
We'll see how things play out next time given Whitty's lockdown opinion.And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Covid inquiry: First lockdown imposed a bit too late - Whitty
Although interestingly...
article said:
He added: "My view is, with the benefit of hindsight, we went a bit too late on the first wave.
"I was probably further towards, 'let's think through the disadvantages here before we act' and also in making sure that in giving my advice, that ministers were aware of both sides of the equation.
"The biggest impacts of those would be areas of deprivation and those in difficulties, and those living alone and so on," Sir Chris said.
"So, I was very aware that we essentially had two different things we were trying to balance - the risk of going too early, in which case you get all the damages from this with actually fairly minimal impact on the epidemic, and the risk of going too late, in which case you get all the problems of the pandemic running away."
And he said: "Even at the height of the pandemic, more people died of causes not Covid than died of Covid."
"Every one of those deaths is tragic on both of those sides."
"I was probably further towards, 'let's think through the disadvantages here before we act' and also in making sure that in giving my advice, that ministers were aware of both sides of the equation.
"The biggest impacts of those would be areas of deprivation and those in difficulties, and those living alone and so on," Sir Chris said.
"So, I was very aware that we essentially had two different things we were trying to balance - the risk of going too early, in which case you get all the damages from this with actually fairly minimal impact on the epidemic, and the risk of going too late, in which case you get all the problems of the pandemic running away."
And he said: "Even at the height of the pandemic, more people died of causes not Covid than died of Covid."
"Every one of those deaths is tragic on both of those sides."
JuanCarlosFandango said:
zarjaz1991 said:
No government has any authority to imprison me in my own home, or legislate for who can I have inside my own home.
And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
Well said. And no government will ever do it to me again, because I will not just ignore it, I will openly and intentionally defy it.
In fact I would rather take my chances with any disease going than be subjected to that form of government. Never again.
There was no need to isolate anyone, it’s an utter fallacy. The people that died in the first “wave” were due to miss treatment and very poor health care choices, mostly ventilation, premature end of life treatment and general despicable treatment of our old and vulnerable. Doing absolutely nothing would have saved thousands and thousands of lives instantly, never mind the long term costs we now have to burden because of it.
Never going to be admitted though is it.
Never going to be admitted though is it.
Kawasicki said:
I’m vaccinated, well fed, fit and also have a positive mindset.
That didn’t work for me.
On the plus side I recovered quickly and suffer no lasting side effects that I know of.
Excellent that you recovered quickly.That didn’t work for me.
On the plus side I recovered quickly and suffer no lasting side effects that I know of.
It's a shame that the nation didn't use the pandemic to truly change there diet, get more exercise and be positive.
Had we done so (instead of the government actively promoting the opposite) im certain the pandemic would've been a non event.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff