914 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Dr McCullough is back describing how he had incredible pushback when early in the pandemic he developed treatment protocols for COVID patients. Who were the one's trying to squelch treatment options? What were their motivations? It makes no sense. Millions of people died.

 

https://www.lewrockw...t-longer-video/

https://www.lewrockw...gainst-tyranny/

 

 

“I think you’re absolutely right and this is why I brought up that term, Gleichschaltung, this synchronization,” Hopkins says. “It’s very clear to me, to you, to those of us who have been paying attention, the intensity of the effort to silence discussion. To silence dissent. To silence questioning.

[Hip]

Tucker makes money from riling people up and dividing Americans into warring camps. He is not someone I would go to for honest and real information on the pandemic. Nor would I go to Rachael Maddow or any other partisan political pundit. I encourage people to think for themselves and not be a ventriloquist dummy of these political hacks.
 
.....
 
For me a bigger problem than censorship is that so many people believe lies and conspiracies and you have all these all these charlatans who make it their livelihood to spread  distortions of reality.  I've never in my 50 something years on earth felt like our country was so sad and deranged. 

 
Very well put, geo12the.

 

Because of the enormous new freedoms the Internet provides in terms of the ease and very low cost in which you can publish material, a plethora of click bait news websites has appeared offering all manner of opinions and perspectives — often extreme perspectives. All these websites make money from their web traffic via advertising or subscriptions.

 

Because these news websites are businesses, their primary interest may be more about promoting web traffic to their site, rather than presenting a balanced perspective. 

 

And unfortunately it turns out that exaggerated, polarized inflammatory website material is much stronger click bait than sober balanced presentations. So this is why the Internet is evolving to polarized incendiary material.

 

 

Very few people realize that these click bait news websites are screwing with their minds in order to make money. The majority of people just have the wool pulled over their eyes, and get angry and worked up after reading these dubious click bait authors; people may be unaware that they are being psychologically manipulated, becoming fodder to support the writers' income. 

 

These are the Internet victims: the people who become riled up by web authors who are making money out of the anger they create.

 

 

The irony is that people who read these click bait websites believe they are free thinkers; but they never contemplate that they may just be fodder for someone else's profit. 

 

True free thinkers are typically very calm and almost spiritual in their countenance. When you are riled up, and thus a hostage to your own uncontrollable emotions, that is definitely not the state of mind which leads to free thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 14 June 2021 - 02:12 PM.

[Mind]

 
Very well put, geo12the.

 

Because of the enormous new freedoms the Internet provides in terms of the ease and very low cost in which you can publish material, a plethora of click bait news websites has appeared offering all manner of opinions and perspectives — often extreme perspectives. All these websites make money from their web traffic via advertising or subscriptions.

 

Because these news websites are businesses, their primary interest may be more about promoting web traffic to their site, rather than presenting a balanced perspective. 

 

And unfortunately it turns out that exaggerated, polarized inflammatory website material is much stronger click bait than sober balanced presentations. So this is why the Internet is evolving to polarized incendiary material.

 

 

Very few people realize that these click bait news websites are screwing with their minds in order to make money. The majority of people just have the wool pulled over their eyes, and get angry and worked up after reading these dubious click bait authors; people may be unaware that they are being psychologically manipulated, becoming fodder to support the writers' income. 

 

These are the Internet victims: the people who become riled up by web authors who are making money out of the anger they create.

 

 

The irony is that people who read these click bait websites believe they are free thinkers; but they never contemplate that they may just be fodder for someone else's profit. 

 

True free thinkers are typically very calm and almost spiritual in their countenance. When you are riled up, and thus a hostage to your own uncontrollable emotions, that is definitely not the state of mind which leads to free thinking.

 

Like I expected, attacking the messenger instead of addressing the issue and the science.

 

The National News outlets do the same thing, but it worse, because the claim they are objective. CNN was caught on camera saying explicitly that they intentionally stoked fear about COVID. 

Edited by Mind, 14 June 2021 - 05:31 PM.

[Mind]

Daszak allegedly caught lying about bats at the Wuhan lab. Deletes his old tweet about it.

 

https://www.american..._wuhan_lab.html

 

This is the same guy who claimed it was very easy to manipulate coronaviruses.

 

This is the same guy who helped tarnish people - who presented real evidence of a Wuhan lab leak as the source of the virus - as idiots and conspiracy nuts.

 

This is the same guy who convinced 27 scientists to lend support in a letter claiming the Wuhan Lab leak story was nonsense and unscientific. Many of the scientists are now recanting.

[Mind]

There are two separate issues that are being confused. The first issue is testing positive for COVID. PCR is used to determine that. The CT cycle threshold for determining and reporting who has COVID has not changed. It is still 40.

 

From the COVID PCR test manual on the CDC site (https://www.fda.gov/...134922/download):

 

"When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered negative if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves DO NOT cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct) AND the RNase P growth curve DOES cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct)."

 

The second issue is sequencing. Most people who test positive don't have their virus sequenced. The number I have seen is 17% of positive cases in April 2021 are sequenced. Some people might want to have their virus sequenced. For example to see what variant they have. But to do the sequencing you need to have a decent amount of PCR product present or it wont work.  The document you cite has to do with people who test positive and then want their virus sequenced.  In those cases the CT threshold needs be be lower than 28 or the sequencing comes out crappy. But people who have a threshold higher than 28 are still reported as being COVID positive.    From the document: 

 

"Respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing • Specimen selection o Clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28._

 

Part of the problem is that science is complex and easily misinterpreted. 

 

You can see then why people are suspicious about the difference in cycle thresholds.

 

A sample is collected and tested up to 40 PCR cycles, which many experts (including Dr. Fauci) say is much too high and produces a high rate of false positives.

 

One could be charitable and say, that this is done out of an "abundance of caution", even though it might skew the number of "cases" much higher than the true amount.

 

Whereas for sequencing, you have to be much more stringent. One must be certain there is actually a complete or near complete virus genetic sequence in the sample. The CDC does not want to waste its time and resources on samples with questionable amounts of virus material.

[Hip]

Like I expected, attacking the messenger instead of addressing the issue and the science.

The messenger must always be attacked when they are fundamentally incompetent, and thus cannot understand complex subjects like virology and the dynamics of a pandemic. Especially when in spite of being incompetent, they voice loud opinions. 

 

The worst people in the world are those with a high ratio of vociferousness to knowledge. When someone shouts their mouth off online, but knows little about their subject, it is no good humoring their ignorance. You just have to be honest, and point out that they do not have sufficient mental competence to understand the complexities. Right wingers are often like that: very loud, but with little knowledge.

 

Liberals on the other hand are often knowledgable, but many are up their own arses, and live in a fantasy world of their own creation. 

 

 

 

The National News outlets do the same thing, but it worse, because the claim they are objective. CNN was caught on camera saying explicitly that they intentionally stoked fear about COVID.

 

I agree. 

 

CNN has gone downhill in a big way. I used to watch it years ago, but now it's become such a propaganda rag that it's quite vile. Don Lemon of CNN is the worst; he is just a pure propaganda machine. CNN's Fareed Zakaria is OK though.

 

The UK Guardian newspaper likewise: I used to read it, but now it's become so opinionated and propaganda-based, rather than fact-based, that it make me sick.

 

The job of a good journalist is to gather and present the facts, and do scrupulous fact checking to try to make sure the facts are correct. 

 

These days, many journalists are too lazy to gather the facts, so they just spout their opinions. I am not interested in their opinions; I have my own opinions, thank you. 

 

However, it is still possible to find reliable fact-based journalism, if you know where to look.

 

 

 

I think part of the reason newspaper journalism is going downhill is because of declining newspaper sales, due to the Internet. So there is not as much money in journalism, and thus the quality suffers. 

 

I am hoping other counties follow the lead of Australia, and charge Google for displaying news articles from newspapers, with that money going to support newspapers. Hopefully that will lead to a resurgence of newspaper quality and objectivity. 

 

Edited by Hip, 14 June 2021 - 06:50 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

From India's "The Print", June 12, 2021: Bar association serves legal notice to WHO chief scientist over Ivermectin guidelines

 

And now, a quote from a Juvenal delinquent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" 

 

And my answer is...Hip!, yes!, our resident polymath (leader of the "scientific" "Nicholas Bourbaki"-like clique) who knows better than ewe sheep out there what is best for ewe in terms of what ewe should be allowed to see on the internet. There may be some pushback and bleating against my particular choice, and ewe sheep may feel censored if he is given the power, but I say just wether it out.

 

(This message is brought to you by "Deer Leader" whose motto is: "The Buck stops here".  Additional funding by "Orange God" Russian mandarin oranges fertilized with bat guano for that distinctive "WTF" flavor).

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 14 June 2021 - 11:01 PM.

[geo12the]

Like I expected, attacking the messenger instead of addressing the issue and the science.

 

 

 

I don't even know what the issue is at this point. Vaccines bad. Big science bad. CDC bad. Fauci bad. Tucker knows best. It's too crazy for me at this point, but you all  enjoy.

 

I will restate what I have stated before:  The vaccines save lives. There is no conspiracy of people dying from being vaccinated. No one is being forced to be vaccinated. Just because some fringe doofus is taken off social media the sky is not falling. It's manufactured drama. I'm over it. But you enjoy.

[bladedmind]

The three maxims at the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi were:

• Know thyself
• Nothing in excess
• Surety brings ruin

Surety brings ruin is probably best understood, according to Diogenes Laertius, as Beware false certainty.

Edited by bladedmind, 15 June 2021 - 07:06 PM.

[Hip]

I don't even know what the issue is at this point. Vaccines bad. Big science bad. CDC bad. Fauci bad. Tucker knows best. It's too crazy for me at this point, but you all  enjoy.

 

I will restate what I have stated before:  The vaccines save lives. There is no conspiracy of people dying from being vaccinated. No one is being forced to be vaccinated. Just because some fringe doofus is taken off social media the sky is not falling. It's manufactured drama. I'm over it. But you enjoy.

 

I like your phrase "manufactured drama". That's what all quoting all these junk science and fake news website is all about, a means of creating drama on Longecity and other places online.

 

The reality is, the pandemic is being dealt with by scientific institutions staffed by very intelligent people who have the appropriate scientific expertise. 

 

Input from the general public is not needed, and if not of any use anyway, since you have to have a scientific mind to be of use. Just like the average person on the street is not going to be able to help perform brain surgery.

 

But the manufactured drama I guess does help the general public feel that they are not left out of the scientific debate. The general public canthis manufactured drama to create a sense that they are participating, and doing something useful.

 

I guess this manufactured drama may thus be of psychological benefit, since if it lets the general public feel as if they are playing a role in events, this can help calm anxiety. If you feel you have no control over a hairy situation, it can lead to anxiety; but if you feel you are in control, then the anxiety substantially diminishes.

 

So maybe the manufactured drama during this pandemic is a sort of psychological mind balm which helps calm the general public, and let's them feel involved in the unfolding history of our times.

Edited by Hip, 15 June 2021 - 07:49 PM.

[Hip]

Hip!, yes!, our resident polymath

 

I am more like a brain-damaged vegetable than a polymath!

 

I did used to have a wide range of reading interests in mathematics, physics, the philosophy of maths and physics, the philosophy of mind, psychology, cognitive science and human consciousness, mystical and spiritual matters, etc. Only at a popular science reading level, I should add. But then I was hit with a viral brain infection which thereafter left me with ME/CFS brain fog and fatigue, and have not read a single new book on any of these subjects as a result. Have not read a single new book for 15 years, whereas I before would devour books on these subjects. 

 

So yes, just call me the resident viral vegetable! 

 

I will still pipe up though when I see dubious science! 

Edited by Hip, 15 June 2021 - 08:11 PM.

[pamojja]

The reality is, the pandemic is being dealt with by scientific institutions staffed by very intelligent people who have the appropriate scientific expertise.

Such in contratiction to all working frontline against this pandemic, some with the most excelled scientific expertise. Like Kory or Marik.

https://drmalcolmken...ancock-i-tried/

Matt Hancock ‘I tried’

16th June 2021

This article first appeared in RT.com https://www.rt.com/o...s-matt-hancock/

As a GP working mainly with elderly patients in Care Homes and Intermediate Care I witnessed, at first hand, the absolute disaster that was the Government policy at the start of the COVID19 outbreak. Elderly patients who were COVID19 positive, or not tested, perhaps even negative, were simply shovelled out of hospitals and into care homes. ‘The hospitals must be cleared out… nothing else matters.’

At the time there was no personal protection equipment (PPE) available… at all. In fact, in many care homes staff were actually ordered by the management not to wear PPE. This was also the case in hospitals. Not that it would have made a great deal of difference in most care homes where patients with dementia often wander happily from room-to-room without masks, and oblivious to any potential danger. I had to usher one or two out of the nurse’s office from time to time.

In my work with Intermediate Care patients, looking after those who were too well to be in an acute hospital bed, but not yet well enough to be at home, we were placed under massive pressure to just send everyone home. That is if they were COVID19 positive, or not, or untested, where they could spread it to their – often elderly – relatives. Alternatively, they could infect their carers who would then travel to the homes of other elderly people they were looking after, without PPE.

In fact, if you wanted to design a system of ensuring that every single, vulnerable person in the country gained full exposure to COVID19, you could not have a done a better job. I wrote several increasingly frustrated e-mails to various managers, but they simply stated they were just following policy so ‘you can’t blame me’. Policy set at the very top.

Here is an example of the type of e-mail I was sending in April 2020. You may sense the frustration (I have changed the names of the unit and wards for confidentiality reasons).

I think this is very simple, Unit A is currently ‘hot’. We have five patients and four staff ‘COVID positive’ swabbed. Eight patients have now died of COVID.

If we admit COVID negative patients into Unit A this is putting them at great risk of being infected. So, we should stop admissions. The only ones that should come in are those found positive, recovered, and 14 days post positive swab – at least.

Equally if we discharge patients, we are, almost certainly, spreading COVID around the entire care community. Until fourteen days have passed.

There is also a plan to send COVID positive patients to ward B, and keep Unit A as green (no COVID). The only way Unit A can be green is if we stop admitting patients. Because, once new patients reach Unit A they are likely to get infected, then another 14 – 21 days must pass. So, we will go round and round, forever.

Also, another plan is to send high risk staff to Unit A, and have low risk staff in ward B, so the staff will be swapped around. Again, Unit A is currently red hot. We will be endangering high risk staff if we send them to Unit A. Some of them will get infected. Then, they will incubate for 7 – 14 days. They will infect patients, and other staff, then they will go off sick. Then, some of them may well die.

The current plan seems to be to admit elderly vulnerable patients into a high risk COVID ‘hot’ environment and hope they don’t get COVID. We have already seen staff to patient transmission in Unit A. So, some of these patients will get infected, with a very high risk of dying….

In a way, it is hard to blame management who were trying to follow ever-changing edicts from above. Edicts often directly contradicting what they had been told the day before. It was chaos. Now, we have Matt Hancock, the UK Health Secretary stating, amazingly without being struck down by a lightning bolt, that he threw a ring of steel around care homes and elderly hospital units at the time. A… ring… of… steel. This was presumably to stop anyone escaping somewhere safer. Of course, he now says that the most important word in his statement is ‘tried’ as in ‘We tried to throw a ring of steel…’

This will now be his perfect defence. I didn’t say we succeeded, I only said that we tried. How completely pathetic. First, he did the exact opposite of trying. He put in place policies that were directly responsible for the massive number of deaths in care homes. He commanded that hospital were emptied out of elderly patients. What’s his next excuse. ‘Lots of the other countries did the same thing.’ Which is true. But you can hardly claim you are a leader, if all you managed to do was follow others down a disastrous policy failure.

How many deaths did this cause? Well, during the first wave of COVID19 it has been estimated that forty per cent of deaths occurred in care homes. Here from the Nuffield trust:

‘…the burden of the virus fell much more severely on care homes (relative to the population generally) in the first wave. Of the 48,213 COVID deaths registered between mid-March and mid-June, 40% were care home residents.’ https://www.nuffield...-home-residents

There are around half a million residents in care homes, which is nought point seven per-cent (0.7%) of the entire population. Yet they had forty per cent (40%) of the deaths.

Yes, the elderly, especially those in care homes were most likely to die from COVID19. But this was known very early on. In Italy, where COVID19 first hit Europe, the average age of death was eighty two, and almost all of those who died had other, significant diseases.

If there was one population that needed to be protected it was elderly, vulnerable care home residents. Matt Hancock presided over policy decisions that threw care home residents under a bus. Now he is trying to claim he did all he could to protect them. Anyone who works in the health service, or in the care sector, knows exactly what he did.

Edited by pamojja, 16 June 2021 - 09:38 AM.

[Hip]

Such in contratiction to all working frontline against this pandemic, some with the most excelled scientific expertise. Like Kory or Marik.
 

 

No authority or institution is perfect, and mistakes are made. But the main objective is still met, and the overall performance of these institutions is good.

 

 

Whereas if the pandemic were dealt with using the views and ideas that you promoted on this forum (for example, your earlier idea that the pandemic will just disappear in a few months on its own by herd immunity), then the death toll would have been incalculably higher. 

 

This is why it we should be so grateful that in the West we have competent institutions control, rather that buffoon members of the general public being in charge. The views of buffoon members of the general public are very dangerous.

Edited by Hip, 16 June 2021 - 02:52 PM.

[joesixpack]

I am more like a brain-damaged vegetable than a polymath!

 

I did used to have a wide range of reading interests in mathematics, physics, the philosophy of maths and physics, the philosophy of mind, psychology, cognitive science and human consciousness, mystical and spiritual matters, etc. Only at a popular science reading level, I should add. But then I was hit with a viral brain infection which thereafter left me with ME/CFS brain fog and fatigue, and have not read a single new book on any of these subjects as a result. Have not read a single new book for 15 years, whereas I before would devour books on these subjects. 

 

So yes, just call me the resident viral vegetable! 

 

I will still pipe up though when I see dubious science!

 

 

Usually, I consider your "contributions" here to be useless trolling. However, I am sorry to hear about your brain fog issue. That may explain your need to mess with people trying to have a rational discussion.

 

2 suggestions for your problem. Take a look at Audible.com and try their audible books. You can download them to many devices from computers to phones and they are a great way to access books.

 

Try using NR, nicotinamide riboside. It has helped me a lot. Additionally, try Carbon 60 EVOO. I have found those two supplements to be helpful with regard to mental acuity and relief from arthritic pain. 

 

Also in this time of Covid, I suggest supplementing with a multi vitamin that contains zinc, vitamin D3 and vitamin C.

 

Good luck, hope you feel better.

[Hip]

Usually, I consider your "contributions" here to be useless trolling. However, I am sorry to hear about your brain fog issue. That may explain your need to mess with people trying to have a rational discussion.

 
"Messing" with people who are rational and have a good scientific understanding of health and medical issues I never do. I enjoy fruitful discussion and exchange of ideas with these scientific types.
 
And if someone has a little understanding of science, but wants to learn, I am always happy to patiently explain things to them, if they are interested. 
 
However, if someone has a poor understanding of the science behind the topic they are talking about, but in spite of this, has very headstrong opinions, then it is no good engaging in rational conversation, because fruitful, useful and rational conversations will rarely emerge with those headstrong types.
 
The headstrong types often get their info from dubious sources: from quack medics, junk science articles, fake news or conspiracy theory websites.
 
These headstrong people are unwittingly providing free advertising to these dubious misinforming websites. You cannot tackle such people with rational discussion, because rationality is their weak point. So in order to address their opinions, you have to play the man, and not the ball (to use a sporting analogy).
 
When we are dealing with conspiracy theories, it always necessary to play the man, and not the ball. It is no good entering a rational discussion with flat Earther, because that will not achieve anything. You will just embarrass yourself by even entertaining the thought of a rational discussion with such people. So when I hear some say "the whole pandemic was planned in order to control world populations" or some similar rubbish, the only sensible response is to plat the man, and say "year right, keep taking the pills".
 
Ultimately, I am to blame though: I have found that having ME/CFS can make you easily irritated and intolerant. So in the past I might just pass over a naive remark by someone; but once you have an irritable mental state, foolishness may make you angry. Still, in helping to counter COVID misinformation, I think my irritability is being put to good use!
 


 

2 suggestions for your problem. Take a look at Audible.com and try their audible books. You can download them to many devices from computers to phones and they are a great way to access books.
 
Try using NR, nicotinamide riboside. It has helped me a lot. Additionally, try Carbon 60 EVOO. I have found those two supplements to be helpful with regard to mental acuity and relief from arthritic pain. 
 
Also in this time of Covid, I suggest supplementing with a multi vitamin that contains zinc, vitamin D3 and vitamin C.
 
Good luck, hope you feel better.

Thanks for those suggestions. I have tried nicotinamide mononucleotide (which is similar to NR), and also C60, but unfortunately to no avail. I heard one story of an ME/CFS patient who did well on C60, but other ME/CFS patients who tried C60 found no benefit. ME/CFS tends to be quite individual, in that what works for one may not work for the next patient.

 

NR or NMN can sometimes be helpful in ME/CFS for a few weeks, but patients often report it stops working after that.
 
The amount of ME/CFS patients in the world has suddenly doubled as a result of long COVID, which is a condition that appears to be almost identical to ME/CFS. So hopefully with this flood of new ME/CFS patients with long COVID, we might see more research into this grim disease. ME/CFS is usually triggered by a viral infection; one of my interests is trying to raise awareness online of the link between viruses and bacteria, and a whole array of nasty chronic diseases. There is very low awareness in the world of the pathogen — chronic disease link. Even on Longecity, there is very low awareness. If you researched arthritis for example, you would find it linked to a number of pathogens.

Edited by Hip, 16 June 2021 - 07:26 PM.

[pamojja]

Whereas if the pandemic were dealt with using the views and ideas that you promoted on this forum (for example, your earlier idea that the pandemic will just disappear in a few months on its own by herd immunity), then the death toll would have been incalculably higher.

 

True, I said its seasonal and without messing and prolonging too much with non-evidence based lockdowns, probably worst over in 2,3 seasons. Certainly by far not as bad as the the flu or even the 1918 pandemic, with its much higher death-toll for the non-elderly.

 

If it where dealt with my way it would about look like in Sweden, compared to Europe or the US, and obviously lower death-toll by many millions.

 

 Screenshot_20210616-192800~2.png   366.08KB   0 downloads

 

If additionally all available experimental outpatients treatments would have been employed, the already at the start known most vulnerable be protected, deaths would have been easily halved.

 

You are still in denial of the most basic facts having become totally apparent except for those with learning disabilties. Without disabilties and continous and incessant propagation of all the disastrous counter-meassures, really are guilty of these crime against humanity too. (none-protection of the elderly, prohibition and censorship of experimental out-patient treatments, shutting down small businesses and thereby enriching only billionaires, really killling millions by so much ignorant negligence)

[Hip]

If it where dealt with my way it would about look like in Sweden.

 

Indeed it would, and the anti-lockdown approach of Sweden was a disaster, compared to its neighbors of Finland and Norway.

 

Because climate and seasonality appears to effect coronavirus spread, you really need to compare Sweden's results with those of neighboring countries, which are Finland and Norway. These 3 countries all have a similar climate.

 

So far, the deaths per million in Sweden are 1416, whereas deaths per million in Finland and Norway are 174 and 147 respectively. Ref: here. Finland and Norway embraced lockdowns, Sweden avoided lockdowns.

 

So looks like deaths are about 9 times higher in Sweden compared to Finland and Norway. That is the result of following the anti-lockdown herd immunity approach you were promoting at the beginning of the pandemic. Nine times the amount of death just by shunning lockdown.

 

Even the King of Sweden admitted that their approach failed: "I think we have failed. We have a large number who have died and that is terrible."

 

 

 

Admittedly even in the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's initial idea was going for herd immunity, but this was only for a few weeks right at the beginning of the pandemic, but he did a rapid U-turn on this idea very quickly. 

Edited by Hip, 16 June 2021 - 10:17 PM.

[Florin]

No authority or institution is perfect, and mistakes are made. But the main objective is still met, and the overall performance of these institutions is good.

 

 

Whereas if the pandemic were dealt with using the views and ideas that you promoted on this forum (for example, your earlier idea that the pandemic will just disappear in a few months on its own by herd immunity), then the death toll would have been incalculably higher. 

 

This is why it we should be so grateful that in the West we have competent institutions control, rather that buffoon members of the general public being in charge. The views of buffoon members of the general public are very dangerous.

 

Expert performance in the West was poor, not "good." Sure, the "it's just a flu" cranks were completely wrong but the experts were not that great either. They claimed quarantines and travel bans were useless, flip-flopped on masks, and didn't (and still don't) recommend the use of respirators by the public. This poor advice has led to millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in lost productivity.

 

The amount of ME/CFS patients in the world has suddenly doubled as a result of long COVID, which is a condition that appears to be almost identical to ME/CFS. So hopefully with this flood of new ME/CFS patients with long COVID, we might see more research into this grim disease. ME/CFS is usually triggered by a viral infection; one of my interests is trying to raise awareness online of the link between viruses and bacteria, and a whole array of nasty chronic diseases. There is very low awareness in the world of the pathogen — chronic disease link. Even on Longecity, there is very low awareness. If you researched arthritis for example, you would find it linked to a number of pathogens.

 

Senolytics such as fisetin might help.

 

https://www.genengne...ell-senescence/

[Hip]

Expert performance in the West was poor, not "good." Sure, the "it's just a flu" cranks were completely wrong but the experts were not that great either. They claimed quarantines and travel bans were useless, flip-flopped on masks, and didn't (and still don't) recommend the use of respirators by the public.

The white lies some of the scientists told about masks was not good, I agree. Because these scientists wanted to protect the very limited (at that time) supply of masks for frontline health workers, the scientists pretended that masks were of no use for the general public. OK, it is fair enough wanting to ensure frontline health workers get the masks they need. But science should not be in the business of telling untruths just to further certain objectives.

 

In the UK we did not hear anything about quarantines and travel bans being useless, and in fact these were imposed right from the beginning of the pandemic. 

 

But I believe in the US, at the beginning of the pandemic, Trump wanted to ban travel from China to the US, but the WHO said it was not necessary. In this case, Trump would appear to be right, and the WHO wrong. That Director-General of the WHO, former communist Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus never inspired much confidence. For me, he has a slightly patronizing way of coming across, as if he is wiser than everyone else. Tedros used to be shown on the UK news nearly all the time at the beginning of the pandemic, but now he's hardly seen at all on TV, and we just hear the views of our homegrown scientific experts.

 

[Hip]

Senolytics such as fisetin might help.
 
https://www.genengne...ell-senescence/

Thanks, I will look into it.

[pamojja]

So far, the deaths per million in Sweden are 1416, whereas deaths per million in Finland and Norway are 174 and 147 respectively. Ref: here. Finland and Norway embraced lockdowns, Sweden avoided lockdowns.

 

So looks like deaths are about 9 times higher in Sweden compared to Finland and Norway.

 

That is cherry-picking at it finest, to arrive at your distorted assumption from the start.

 

Finland and Norway are all factored in the average death-toll of Europe, and therefore are included in this comparison of lockdowns versus none.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

That is cherry-picking at it finest, to arrive at your distorted assumption from the start.

 

Finland and Norway are all factored in the average death-toll of Europe, and therefore are included in this comparison of lockdowns versus none.

 

If we are going to talk about cherry-picking, why are you choosing Europe as the area for your analysis? Why not choose Eurasia, or the whole world? 

 

I noticed a long time ago that all the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have very low levels of COVID death — except Sweden, which has a high per capita level of death. You can see that on this European map of total deaths per million in each country.

 

Notice on that map that the whole of the Nordic region has very low levels of COVID death (except Sweden). This low level of death may be due to local factors in the Nordic area, such as cold climate and sparse population density. The low deaths may also be due to the fact that people in Nordic countries are very co-operative, and thus will tend to be happy to follow any advice or rules their governments give them on pandemic issues.

 

Sweden, the only Nordic country which shunned lockdowns, bucks the trend in the Nordic zone, having 9 times higher per capita death levels than all its Nordic neighbors. 

 

 

 

So had your anti-lockdown ideas been implemented worldwide, perhaps 9 times more people would have died globally. Currently there have been 3.8 million COVID deaths worldwide.

 

With your anti-lockdown ideas put in place around the world, the current death toll may have risen by nine times, that is, to 34.2 million deaths.

 

It's a sobering thought, isn't it, that your anti-lockdown ideas could have killed so many people.

 

Edited by Hip, 17 June 2021 - 01:19 PM.

[Mind]

Regulatory capture has happened many times in the past. Obscenely wealthy people want to become even more obscenely wealthy. It's human nature.

 

Why has nearly all inquiry into COVID-19, the pandemic response, and the origin been squelched?

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=63e1e78d2ee0

[pamojja]

If we are going to talk about cherry-picking, why are you choosing Europe as the area for your analysis? Why not choose Eurasia, or the whole world?

Because Sweden is part of Europe and the Western regions, like the US, with similiar climates, latitudes, genetics, prevalence of covid-19, and many more similiar factors. Also those close neighboring countries had higher all-cause mortality then Sweden the previous years.

If you want compare other regions of the world, like Africa with a world of a difference in mortality rates, you again may also consider in those regions there are Swedens without having had lockdowns (Malawi, Tansania..).

I noticed a long time ago that all the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) have very low levels of COVID death — except Sweden, which has a high per capita level of death.

How can you exclude from all the Nordic countries the north of America, and moreover most hardest hit UK?!? Including Wales, Northern Ireland and Scottland? Which like the immetiate neighbors of Sweden, were just as mildly hit?

See: https://www.euromomo...ores-by-country

So had your anti-lockdown ideas been implemented worldwide, perhaps 9 times more people would have died globally.

Sure, as already your oracles beginning of last year predicted Sweden to have in future without Lockdowns. Only by now it should be also have come to your awareness, that hasn't happen at all. Sweden actually fared much better than the average of Europe and the US.

And certainly compared to that other Nortic country UK, even considering having the advantage of including mildly hit Wales, Scottland and Northern Ireland.

Edited by pamojja, 17 June 2021 - 05:33 PM.

[Florin]

The white lies some of the scientists told about masks was not good, I agree. Because these scientists wanted to protect the very limited (at that time) supply of masks for frontline health workers, the scientists pretended that masks were of no use for the general public. OK, it is fair enough wanting to ensure frontline health workers get the masks they need. But science should not be in the business of telling untruths just to further certain objectives.

That's another lie. The PPE supply was still just as limited when they started recommending masks.

It also doesn't explain why respirators haven't been recommended. There's some evidence to suggest that this poor advice was driven by the false, century-old belief that viral respiratory infections are probably not transmitted by aerosols. But this still doesn't explain why respirators continue to not be recommended.

https://www.theinsig...at-explain-much
 

In the UK we did not hear anything about quarantines and travel bans being useless, and in fact these were imposed right from the beginning of the pandemic. 
 
But I believe in the US, at the beginning of the pandemic, Trump wanted to ban travel from China to the US, but the WHO said it was not necessary. In this case, Trump would appear to be right, and the WHO wrong. That Director-General of the WHO, former communist Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus never inspired much confidence. For me, he has a slightly patronizing way of coming across, as if he is wiser than everyone else. Tedros used to be shown on the UK news nearly all the time at the beginning of the pandemic, but now he's hardly seen at all on TV, and we just hear the views of our homegrown scientific experts.

As far as I know, the idea that quarantines and travel bans are useless is (or was until last year) dogma in epidemiology. And there was nothing like the quarantines and travel bans that happened in countries in Asia that were (and still are) able to control the pandemic.

Edited by Florin, 17 June 2021 - 07:30 PM.

[pamojja]

If we are going to talk about cherry-picking, why are you choosing Europe as the area for your analysis? Why not choose Eurasia, or the whole world?

Or South America ;-)

 Screenshot_20210617-210107~2.png   403.74KB   0 downloads

No serious, one can really only compare to equal incidence in sufficiently similiar large areas. Otherwise it becomes comparing apples to oranges. And with your preference for Asia - cherry-picking again to confirm your bias.

In Africa and Asia the availability of prescription drugs like ivermectin or hydrochloroquine makes them incompareable. South America too, dispite strict lockdowns but probably a high percentage of indegenous immunity not yet prepared for corona-virus.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Here is a paper from August 2020. I suspect that most of the factors mentioned in the paper are still operant:

 

"Abstract: What accounts for Sweden’s high Covid death rate among the Nordics? One factor could be Sweden’s lighter lockdown.

 

But we suggest 15 other possible factors. Most significant are:

 

(1) the “dry-tinder” situation in Sweden (we suggest that this crystal-clear factor alone accounts for 25 to 50% of Sweden’s Covid death toll); (2) Stockholm’s larger population; (3) Sweden’s higher immigrant population; (4) in Sweden immigrants probably more often work in the elderly care system; (5) Sweden has a greater proportion of people in elderly care; (6) Stockholm’s “sport-break” was a week later than the other three capital cities; (7) Stockholm’s system of elderly care collects especially vulnerable people in nursing homes; (8) Stockholmers might travel more to the Alpine regions. Other possible factors are: (9) the Swedish elderly and health care system may have done less to try to cure elderly Covid patients; (10) Sweden may have been relatively understocked in protective equipment and sanitizers; (11) Sweden may have been slower to separate Covid patients in nursing homes; (12) Sweden may have been slower to implement staff testing and changes in protocols and equipage; (13) Sweden elderly care workers may have done more cross-facility work; (14) Sweden might have larger nursing homes; (15) Sweden might be quicker to count a death “a Covid death.”

 

 

We give evidence for these other 15 possible factors.

 

It is plausible that Sweden’s lighter lockdown accounts for but a small part of Sweden’s higher Covid death rate."

 

 

As pamojja notes: "Also those close neighboring countries had higher all-cause mortality then Sweden the previous years.". This is tied in with the "dry-tinder" effect mentioned in the article

 

 

NB:I did some minor formatting. AD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 17 June 2021 - 08:00 PM.

[Hip]

Here is a paper from August 2020. I suspect that most of the factors mentioned in the paper are still operant:

 

Interesting. 

 

However, the authors of this paper are economists, not epidemiologists, so they do not have the appropriate expertise in identifying which factors are likely to be involved in viral transmission, and which factors are not. The skill in any science is being able to work out which factors are likely to play a causal role, and which are not.

 

These economists have not used any computer models, which epidemiologist often employ to analyze pandemic growth and spread.

 

Plus these economist authors say in the paper itself that they think lockdowns "damage the human spirit and the moral and political fabric of society", so clearly they do not like lockdowns. So they may be less interested in the truth, and more interested in promoting their anti-lockdown views. And being economists, we can assume they probably think the economy should take precedence over saving lives.

 

 

The largest factor they propose has caused the much higher death toll in Sweden is the "dry tinder" effect, meaning that according to them, Sweden has a lot more elderly people than its Nordic neighbors, and these people would be at higher risk of death. I have not checked to see if this is true or not. But I cannot see why Sweden would have a lot more elderly people than say equally affluent Norway.

Edited by Hip, 17 June 2021 - 08:09 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Data are data, facts are facts, and theories are theories, regardless of being presented by a PhD virologist or by a clerk in the Swiss patent office. 

[Hip]

Data are data, facts are facts, and theories are theories, regardless of being presented by a PhD virologist or by a clerk in the Swiss patent office. 

 

Can't argue with that. We can go further and say cars are cars, and wristwatches are wristwatches, no matter who owns them.

 

But generally you will find billionaires drive a much higher quality automobile compared to your average office cleaner.

 

Likewise, scientific theories produced by experts in their field are generally of much higher quality than those produced by those who know nothing about that field.

 

 

 

And incidentally, that much hackneyed statement that the theory of relativity came from a patent clerk is just a lack of understanding of historical context.

 

In those days, it was hard for university students who wanted to do further study to get a scholarship at a university or research institute. Nowadays, anyone with sufficient intelligence can easily enroll for a master's course or PhD, because there is plenty of grant money available. But in Einstein's time, governments did not hand out many grants, so even bright people had to get a job. And good, interesting jobs were hard to find.

 

Working in a patent office was actually very interesting work in those days (unlike now, where it is often a tedious job). So Einstein was lucky to have an intellectually stimulating career. I know all this because I read an in-depth Einstein biography when I was a teenager.

Edited by Hip, 17 June 2021 - 08:36 PM.