COVID-19

[AnalogPackrat]

You wouldn't know 16 to 24 year olds (the group in the study) showed that increased risk if there was no data.

Again, it's easy in hindsight.

They had practically zero risk in the first place. What logic leads anyone to believe that any risk is worth solving a problem that doesn't exist!? I stand by my comment that the "data" is irrelevant when with any amount of FORESIGHT it was apparent there was no point in jabbing this cohort. We don't needlessly treat people with new medications on a mass scale. That makes no sense at all.

It's not critical if you keep avoiding the science, it's religious.

I'm all about the science. There was nothing rational about the decision-making here. What was pushed with religious fervor was lock downs, masks, and magic vaccines are the only way out.

She's got cancer. Several treatments were postponed because of Covid patients taking up beds in the hospital.

I'm sorry to hear that. I've lost family to cancer that was caught too late because of all the stay home and don't go anywhere crap. Many people have died as a consequence of the irrational response.

So, if you don't live in a constitutional republic, you're on the sideline?

I can't speak for you position. You tried to speak for mine and I corrected you.

How do you know it is a bad decision? What do you compare against? Your belief?

56 years of life experience. Observation. Analysis. How does any rational person judge the decisions of elected leaders? Do you never question the decisions of the leaders of your country?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I can't seem to quote Matador's post. 13,400 worldwide is a tiny number. How many of these children had co-morbidities? What are the long-term risks of the shots (hint-no one knows yet)?

 

[cyrano]

They had practically zero risk in the first place. What logic leads anyone to believe that any risk is worth solving a problem that doesn't exist!? I stand by my comment that the "data" is irrelevant when with any amount of FORESIGHT it was apparent there was no point in jabbing this cohort. We don't needlessly treat people with new medications on a mass scale. That makes no sense at all.

At the beginning of the pandemic nobody knew the numbers for the 16 to 24 year age group.

Besides, calling it "a problem that doesn't exist" shows where you start your reasoning. While the numbers for that age group show far less risk than let's say, the 50 to 70 year olds, healthy people in the young group have died from COVID too.

And besides the risk for the young people themselves, there was a big unknown: transmission. That one isn't fully answered yet, even when we know today several other species besides humans can catch the virus, not much is known about human to animal transmission, or the other way around. The only certainty is that it happens.

Was there over-reach? Probably, yes. The picture still isn't complete.

I wouldn't risk thousands of potential deaths personally. And that is the decision the people responsible for public measures had to take at the beginning of the pandemic.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

At the beginning of the pandemic nobody knew the numbers for the 16 to 24 year age group.

But within the first three months we did. And by the time the shots rolled out we certainly did. Why must you defend the indefensible in the face of logic and data?

Besides, calling it "a problem that doesn't exist" shows where you start your reasoning. While the numbers for that age group show far less risk than let's say, the 50 to 70 year olds, healthy people in the young group have died from COVID too.

It's where all rational people should start their reasoning. Assuming something exists (or doesn't) is not productive. There never has been any data that indicated children were at high risk. Quite the opposite.

And besides the risk for the young people themselves, there was a big unknown: transmission. That one isn't fully answered yet, even when we know today several other species besides humans can catch the virus, not much is known about human to animal transmission, or the other way around. The only certainty is that it happens.

Which is why quarantines (voluntary) of those at risk as used in all past pandemics and urged by experts in The Great Barrington Declaration should have been used, not massively destructive lock downs.

Was there over-reach? Probably, yes. The picture still isn't complete.

Certainly there was and there is no question. Name another time in history when "free" societies reacted this way to a pandemic (and with a CFR this low).

I wouldn't risk thousands of potential deaths personally. And that is the decision the people responsible for public measures had to take at the beginning of the pandemic.

It wasn't their decision to make. Destroying the livelihoods of millions and disrupting childhood education and social development for hundreds of millions was simply a very bad trade off.

 

[cyrano]

You just keep repeating yourself, missing valid points, like transmission. I really see no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You just keep repeating yourself, missing valid points, like transmission. I really see no point in continuing this conversation.

Same to you. I addressed transmission. Quarantine those at risk and those who get it, not the entire population. Or do you deny the science as represented by those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration and other more recent studies showing the negative impact of the unprecendented lock downs, mask mandates, and other measures which were forced upon the world by bureaucrats who love power?

 

[JohnRoberts]

China is giving us a demonstration of merits/limits of zero covid policy... We are already seeing results of their policy experiment.

JR

 

[sodderboy]

I bought Ivermectin at a garage sale yesterday! $10 for 10 count 12mg bubblepac from India. We just got talking with the owner about the whole scamdemic and turns out she had a stash and sold some. That plus my Ecuadorian bundle keeps everyone in the house solid for two future infections. Stored in a cool dry place.
She didn't want to exchange for some of my primo "oregano". . .
Eff the media/government/pharma industrial complex, eff the pharmas, eff the fear mongering.

Mike

 

[cyrano]

You website appears down, Mike...

 

[fallout]

Haha. Didn't see this coming from a mile away. As I've been saying, there will be a surge of Covid in the US right before the midterm elections and like clockwork:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...are-for-summer-covid-surge-as-immunity-wanes/

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have been joking about a "midterm" Covid variant.

The recent correspondents dinner may be a mass spreader incident but the later variants of Covid are mild or symptomless, so people won't know unless they test for it.

We are expecting new vaccines by this fall targeting omicron variant, hope it is still the worst/dominant one by then.

Stay well...

JR

PS: China is still trying to use government force against a virus, good luck with that. At least this is evidence for Covid not being a well engineered chinese made virus. If man made it was poorly done, depending on which metrics are used to decide success or failure.

 

[hodad]

As I've been saying, there will be a surge of Covid in the US right before the midterm elections and like clockwork:

I'm curious: do you think a surge in the virus is "planned" for the coming months?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Should I bring back the covid politics thread?
===
I speculated in jest about a "midterm variant", I am not smart enough to predict the future.

JR

 

[fallout]

I'm curious: do you think a surge in the virus is "planned" for the coming months?

Absolutely not but I do think the 'response' is 'planned', if you catch my drift. If mail in ballots are pushed then it's painfully obvious what the 'plan' is. Time will tell.

Is flu season planned? no.

 

[fallout]

Should I bring back the covid politics thread?

JR

Nah, @cyrano might tell me I have a low 'EQ' again. I always did like a bit of bass.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Nah, @cyrano might tell me I have a low 'EQ' again. I always liked a bit of bass.

then stop trolling for an argument...

JR

 

[fallout]

then stop trolling for an argument...

JR

Get a grip John, I'm not trolling anyone. Looks like humor is non-existent here.

Starting or re-opening another 'politics' thread seems a bit 'troll-ish'. You asked a question, I answered.. Unless of course, you were trolling?

 

[hodad]

If mail in ballots are pushed then it's painfully obvious what the 'plan' is.

I see: a nefarious plan to improve access to free & fair elections. Freakin' Demonrats are the worst!

(On a less facetious not, the latest variants--one in the NY area, two in S. Africa--merit some concern. Apparently, having had Omicron BA1 does little or nothing to protect against the S. African variants, so that could be an issue.)

 

[fallout]

I see: a nefarious plan to improve access to free & fair elections. Freakin' Demonrats are the worst!

I have no problem with you personally but you're extremely difficult to have any sort of conversation with.

Anyway, we should move to voter ID if we wanted elections to move in the direction of 'fair'. Let me guess, the idea voter ID is somehow 'racist'?

Covid is over (endemic), it's time to move on.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Expanding mail- in ballots (outlawed in France because of fraud) is not the recipe for secure elections (IMO).

==

I went back and looked at the dedicated Covid politics thread that I locked because of bad posting behavior...it was nasty so it will remain locked.

Please try to remain civil and not stir up more arguments. This thread still has some merit regarding health issues, so let's not ruin that. There are other threads to flog political argument in.

JR