980 replies to this topic

[Florin]

In an acute short term danger situation - like a poison gas attack (your example) - you would have to wear the mask ALL THE TIME. Take it off for a couple of minutes to eat and drink, and you are dead.

 

Respiratory disease outbreaks are complex and evolve over long time scales. There are extremely few people who would be willing to wear a gas mask for months or years on end. Even for those people, when they take the gas mask off to eat - boom - infected. When they take off their gas mask to sleep - boom - infected. When they take off their gas mask because they are going insane from wearing it for months on end - boom - infected.

 

For those who say South Korea relaxed their mask requirements and that is why they performed so poorly in COVID deaths per million (not proven) - how long do you think they could keep oppressing the population for a disease with an IFR that is a tiny fraction of 1 percent? Remember, China tried that longest. The people were so fed up that they started calling for the ouster of dictator Xi. Literally the next day, the pandemic restrictions were all lifted.

 

Your inconvenience argument sound disingenuous. Going to the grocery store and occasionally visiting friends is wearing PPE ALL THE TIME? Eating and sleep and most other activities would be done at home where wearing PPE would be unnecessary. Most people are used to wearing masks, and they don't seem to mind that much. If you were a soldier in WWI, would you be complaining about wearing a gas mask? What if the covid death rate was 50% for everyone?

 

AFAIK, the IFR for the over-65 groups was a lot higher than "a tiny fraction of 1 percent."

 

It's not surprising that the lower-risk groups got fed up with the never-ending, one-size-fits-all policy. The mistake of the east Asian countries and everyone else was not to target respirator use to high-risk groups. If this had been done, there would have been no need for any other NPI.

[pamojja]

I've heard that the risk of death was about 15% for those over 80 and the risk of hospitalization was far higher. That doesn't sound like such a small risk.

 

Hearsay? If you would be able to switch to rational thinking, you would be able to assess the risk in the above life-expectancy is what it is, and always was.

 

 

 

Most people think that chloroquine and ivermectin are unproven, so they're not going to use them even if they were available.

 

They believe what they are said from institutions with conflict of interest. As you still do. Withoutbeing able for an own evaluation. Hearsay.

 

 

[gamesguru]

Those numbers are correct.

 

The question is, why did South Korea fare so much better? They did several things differently from the rest of the world. Asian countries in general did mask more vigorously.  But, South Korea also sealed it's border very early after the pandemic was announced and instituted mandatory testing and smart phone based contract tracing early.

 

Testing and contact tracing can be very effective if you do it early enough - before the numbers of infected people reach some critical mass beyond which contact tracing is useless.

 

I agree.

 

If the US and the Trump Administration had taken the pandemic more seriously in the early weeks, we could have averted a major crisis.

 

Unfortunately, we did not follow in the footsteps of South Korea.

[Florin]

Hearsay? If you would be able to switch to rational thinking, you would be able to assess the risk in the above life-expectancy is what it is, and always was.

 

They believe what they are said from institutions with conflict of interest. As you still do. Withoutbeing able for an own evaluation. Hearsay.

 

Your hearsay argument is self-refuting. If the risk was low or non-existent, there would be no need to take your miracle drugs.

[Florin]

I agree.

 

If the US and the Trump Administration had taken the pandemic more seriously in the early weeks, we could have averted a major crisis.

 

Unfortunately, we did not follow in the footsteps of South Korea.

 

Was Trump the prez of North America, South America, and Europe?

[pamojja]

Your hearsay argument is self-refuting. If the risk was low or non-existent, there would be no need to take your miracle drugs.

 

You throw in the term of a 'miracle' and simple dress up your hearsay as mine. While these medications are commonly used drugs in poor countries. And you think by throwing in an unrealated term, you would refute? - Strange out of this world logic...

 

Covid wasn't worse than the flu, something I didn't expereinced since 2006, and then only mildly like a 3 days cold. Dispite having the co-morbities of PAD, COPD and T2D diabetes, I didn't experienced even one episode of covid (had no mRNA therapeutic or other vaccine in those 3 years). A miracle? NO, just not worse than any flu I almost don't remember anymore.
 

Edited by pamojja, 23 July 2023 - 09:13 PM.

[Hip]

Covid wasn't worse than the flu

 

How can you consistently get all your facts wrong? COVID was about 3 times worse, in terms of the amount of deaths it causes.

 

 

In the UK, about 25, 000 people die each year from the flu. So over a 3-year period, that would amount to 75,000 deaths. 

 

Since the pandemic started, which was just over 3 years ago, there have been a total 228,000 COVID deaths. In fact it is a bit higher than that, because many people mysteriously die in the 18 months after they caught COVID, but their death is not recorded as due to COVID.

 

So with simple arithmetic, we can say that COVID was 3 times worse than seasonal flu (since 228,000 ÷ 75,000 = 3).

 

 

 

Not to mention the 65 million people whose lives are ruined by getting long COVID after being infected with SARS-CoV-2. 

 

Ask them if they think this COVID is no worse than the flu.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 12:41 AM.

[Hip]

And bear in mind that these COVID death figures are greatly reduced because of measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and of course the highly effective COVID vaccinations. Had it not been for these measures, the total COVID deaths would have been probably around 10 times larger.

 

So you are talking absolute total nonsense when you say "Covid wasn't worse than the flu", Pamojja.

[Dorian Grey]

And bear in mind that these COVID death figures are greatly reduced because of measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and of course the highly effective COVID vaccinations. Had it not been for these measures, the total COVID deaths would have been probably around 10 times larger.

 

So you are talking absolute total nonsense when you say "Covid wasn't worse than the flu", Pamojja.

 

We might say "UNTREATED" COVID was substantially worse than the flu.  Dr Zelenko got an 87% reduction in hospitalization with just a few dollars worth of largely over the counter medicines.  

 

Early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study (PMC7587171)

“Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.”

 

This peer reviewed & published paper was NEVER retracted or disproved through more rigorous RCT.  

[albedo]

 

We might say "UNTREATED" COVID was substantially worse than the flu.  Dr Zelenko got an 87% reduction in hospitalization with just a few dollars worth of largely over the counter medicines.  

 

Early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study (PMC7587171)

“Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.”

 

This peer reviewed & published paper was NEVER retracted or disproved through more rigorous RCT.  

 

 

Thank you for the reminder of that paper (zinc in association). The study was amply cited too: https://pubmed.ncbi....om_uid=33122096

Edited by albedo, 24 July 2023 - 07:34 AM.

[pamojja]

How can you consistently get all your facts wrong? COVID was about 3 times worse, in terms of the amount of deaths it causes.

 

Only when you ignore the fact, that above percent of dying actually had three major chronic condition, which untill now were instead counted as the cause of death, and not the additional flu, which only were the final trigger. Again in majority of such, above life-expectancy.

 

 

So with simple arithmetic, we can say that COVID was 3 times worse than seasonal flu (since 228,000 ÷ 75,000 = 3).

 

One has to really ignore so much evidence to the contrary, to come to your opposite results, you still seem to have much investment in.


 

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree.

 

If the US and the Trump Administration had taken the pandemic more seriously in the early weeks, we could have averted a major crisis.

 

Unfortunately, we did not follow in the footsteps of South Korea.

 

I think the biggest step that the South Koreans took was shutting down their borders almost as soon as the pandemic was announced by China and starting widespread testing.

 

Trump did actually try to impose strict limits on entry into the US ... and was roundly criticized as xenophobic by his political adversaries and the policy was quickly abandoned. One recalls the stunt by Speaker Pelosi where she marched in China Town in San Francisco to denounce the administration policy of shutting down most travel from China as racist and unfair.

 

As for testing, the US diddled around for perhaps 6 months developing it's own covid test rather than use the tests that were developed by China and other Asian counties as the CDC deemed those tests unreliable. But that was hardly Trump's fault. He's about as far from any sort of medical expert as you can get. If the CDC says the tests are unreliable, is any President going to overrule them and say use them anyway?

 

The Trump administration's and the wider US response to covid was far from optimal. But, I think any fair observer would have to admit that the fact that covid policy and politics from both sides of the aisle got mixed together from the get go was a significant factor in how this response was shaped.

 

Trump was perceived as being "tough on China". He had imposed trade tariffs, was in the process of shutting down Tik Tok, and had voiced a lot of "anti-China" rhetoric (mixed in with schizophrenic declarations of what a great guy Xi was). When the virus was revealed to have come from China, there was a fear that this would benefit him politically going into the election that fall. And some were determined to absolutely prevent that from happening.  I think this shaped some of Fauci's response and rhetoric along with constraining what would have been a rationale response of temporarily shutting down travel with China.

 

The extent to which politics shaped the US response to covid will make a fascinating study at some point. Had someone else besides Trump been President and had it not occurred going into an election season - I think some things would have been permitted that were placed off limits.

[Daniel Cooper]

On the way to work this morning another example of the intertwining of politics and covid policy occurred to me.
 
Hydroxychloroquine.
 
I know I'm going to step on toes all around with this view - but I'm still unsure whether this stuff is useful for treating covid. Which is a shame. We should have been able to verify or deny this years ago.
 
But early in the pandemic, it became obvious that HCQ would never be given a fair hearing. For two reasons:
 
1.) The FDA/CDC has not much interest in uncovering and promoting cheap, readily available, off patent, treatments for anything. To do so goes against the interests of it's main clients which are the large pharmaceutical companies and not the American public. It's that regulatory capture thing I keep harping on.

 

2.) Trump had supported it.

 

Reason 2 was sufficient to ensure that it would never be given a fair hearing. Because the hated (by the federal bureaucracy and the establishment of all flavors) Trump had supported it, it must simply must be opposed. If Trump said the sky was blue, a scholarly paper would quickly ensue pointing out that the sky was clearly green. 

 

It's not as if Trump had pulled HCQ out of his backside or off some quack medical website. HCQ was first proposed by Chinese researchers in the aftermath of the SARs pandemic in the early 2000s. They had a rationale and some limited evidence that it might be useful in treating that related virus.

 

But as soon as Trump suggested HCQ publicly, he virtually ensured that it would never be seriously considered. Because anything Trump suggested must be opposed. This was evidenced by that early paper published in the The Lancet which subsequently had to be retracted. The data in that paper was a complete fabrication that the authors refused to release to the reviewing committee. And a cursory glance at the data made it obvious that it was completely bogus. Those authors claimed more cases in their test cohort in Australia than the Australian health authorities had reported as the total number of covid cases in that country at that time. That a paper such as this had been written in the first place and had passed peer review at what had been considered the premier medical journal in the world with such obvious inconsistencies shows the bias that permeated whole swaths of the medical research establishment at that time. I could see that the paper was bull**** not because of my vast knowledge in virology, but because I can do basic math. And that early paper (published in May of 2020 - four months into the pandemic) was used for some time as the reason to dismiss HCQ out of hand. I even saw it cited by people attempting to discount HCQ many months after it was retracted.

 

So HCQ research quickly divided into two groups - medical researchers that just inherently knew that anything Trump said was wrong and set about to prove it, and true believers in HCQ that wanted to prove that position. There were very few disinterested researchers looking at HCQ.  

 

HCQ may or may not now have some really good research that proves or disproves it's effectiveness. I'll admit that I gave up on keeping up with it because the research was so obviously completely shot through with bias.  And that was being driven by politics ... not science.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 24 July 2023 - 03:24 PM.

[Hip]

We might say "UNTREATED" COVID was substantially worse than the flu.  Dr Zelenko got an 87% reduction in hospitalization with just a few dollars worth of largely over the counter medicines.  

 

Zelenko's early treatment results are interesting, though unfortunately will not convince the rest of the medical community until clinical trial is conducted. The trials that were conducted to try to replicate his results employed a late treatment protocol, rather than Zelenko's early treatment protocol, so are not comparable. Thus we unfortunately do not have anything that corroborates his results.

 

 

BUT: if you give this special Zelenko treatment to COVID cases, but not to influenza cases, you are biasing the analysis, you are biasing the comparison of the lethality of these two viruses. 

 

You argue that COVID is not worse than the flu if Zelenko's intensive protective early treatment is used for COVID.

 

But if you are going to do that for COVID, you would also have to give the same early treatment for flu, if you want a fair comparison of the lethality of these two viruses.

 

So for example, in the case of the flu, you would need to treat all high risk or elderly patients who just caught the flu with an antiviral like Tamiflu, right from the beginning of the infection. 

 

Only then, if you provide a similar early protective treatment to both classes of patient, would it be possible to fairly compare the death toll of the flu to the death toll of COVID.

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 02:50 PM.

[Hip]

Only when you ignore the fact, that above percent of dying actually had three major chronic condition, which untill now were instead counted as the cause of death, and not the additional flu, which only were the final trigger. Again in majority of such, above life-expectancy.

 

Your statement about underlying conditions in COVID is not valid, because people who die of seasonal influenza infection also have underlying medical conditions that make them vulnerable to death. 

 

So if you want to discount COVID deaths because of the underlying medical conditions these COVID patients have, then you would also have to discount influenza deaths because of the underlying medical conditions the influenza patients have.

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 02:49 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

On the way to work this morning another example of the intertwining of politics and covid policy occurred to me.
 
Hydroxychloroquine.
 
I know I'm going to step on toes all around with this view - but I'm still unsure whether this stuff is useful for treating covid. Which is a shame. We should have been able to verify or deny this years ago.
 
But early in the pandemic, it became obvious that HCQ would never be given a fair hearing. For two reasons:
 
1.) The FDA/CDC has not much interest in uncovering and promoting cheap, readily available, off patent, treatments for anything. To do so goes against the interests of it's main clients which are the large pharmaceutical companies and not the American public. It's that regulatory capture thing I keep harping on.

 

2.) Trump had supported it.

 

Reason 2 was sufficient to ensure that it would never be given a fair hearing. Because the hated (by the federal bureaucracy and the establishment of all flavors) Trump had supported it, it must simply must be opposed. If Trump said the sky was blue, a scholarly paper would quickly ensue pointing out that the sky was clearly green. 

 

It's not as if Trump had pulled HCQ out of his backside or off some quack medical website. HCQ was first proposed by Chinese researchers in the aftermath of the SARs pandemic in the early 2000s. They had a rationale and some limited evidence that it might be useful in treating that related virus.

 

But as soon as Trump suggested HCQ publicly, he virtually ensured that it would never be seriously considered. Because anything Trump suggested must be opposed. This was evidenced by that early paper published in the The Lancet which subsequently had to be retracted. The data in that paper was a complete fabrication that the authors refused to release to the reviewing committee. And a cursory glance at the data made it obvious that it was completely bogus. Those authors claimed more cases in their test cohort in Australia than the Australian health authorities had reported as the total number of covid cases in that country at that time. That a paper such as this had been written in the first place and had passed peer review at what had been considered the premier medical journal in the world with such obvious inconsistencies shows the bias that permeated whole swaths of the medical research establishment at that time. I could see that the paper was bull**** not because of my vast knowledge in virology, but because I can do basic math. And that early paper (published in May of 2020 - four months into the pandemic) was used for some time as the reason to dismiss HCQ out of hand. I even saw it cited by people attempting to discount HCQ many months after it was retracted.

 

So HCQ research quickly divided into two groups - medical researchers that just inherently knew that anything Trump said was wrong and set about to prove it, and true believers in HCQ that wanted to prove that position. There were very few disinterested researchers looking at HCQ. And politics - not science, was driving most of that.  

 

HCQ may or may not now have some really good research that proves or disproves it's effectiveness. I'll admit that I gave up on keeping up with it because the research was so obviously completely shot through with bias.  And that was being driven by politics ... not science.

 

"The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target."

 

The absolutely frantic suppression of HCQ is probably the best indicator of its potential as a COVID therapeutic.  The evidence goes back 15 years before SARS-CoV-2 even arrived.  

 

After the original SARS coronavirus outbreak of 2002-2004, scientists around the world searched the pharmacopeia for a possible therapeutic. After extensive research and an in vitro study, “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” (PMID: 16115318) was peer reviewed & published in 2005.

 

Fauci & the saboteurs took a lesson from Muhammad Ali and played rope-a-dope, holding up remdesivir as the better alternative, while the front line doctors wore themselves out.  Then "the final nails in the coffin" were driven home by huge, expensive RCTs done on hospitalized patients who were already critically ill.  The Surgisphere paper that sailed through peer review in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine only added to the schadenfreude.  

 

Thank God for whoever set up the C19early.org site, as this details all the treatments, trials and meta-analysis for all to see.  

 

https://c19early.org/

 

Their HCQ page has some enlightening commentary: https://c19hcq.org/

 

"498 HCQ COVID-19 studies, 405 peer reviewed, 402 comparing treatment and control groups. Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay."  " HCQ/CQ was adopted in all or part of 42 countries (57 including non-government medical organizations)."

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 77% of prospective studies report positive effects, compared to 73% of retrospective studies. Studies from North America are 2.5 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world, p = 0.0000000277.

•Negative meta analyses of HCQ generally choose a small subset of trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very late treatment and excessive dosages.

-------------------

 

My own experience with HCQ & COVID changed my life.  I treated early, & my COVID was a walk in the park.  I literally spent a few hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  I'll never forgive Fauci & the flim-flam men who tried to keep this from me.  

[Mind]

 

"The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target."

 

The absolutely frantic suppression of HCQ is probably the best indicator of its potential as a COVID therapeutic.  The evidence goes back 15 years before SARS-CoV-2 even arrived.  

 

After the original SARS coronavirus outbreak of 2002-2004, scientists around the world searched the pharmacopeia for a possible therapeutic. After extensive research and an in vitro study, “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” (PMID: 16115318) was peer reviewed & published in 2005.

 

Fauci & the saboteurs took a lesson from Muhammad Ali and played rope-a-dope, holding up remdesivir as the better alternative, while the front line doctors wore themselves out.  Then "the final nails in the coffin" were driven home by huge, expensive RCTs done on hospitalized patients who were already critically ill.  The Surgisphere paper that sailed through peer review in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine only added to the schadenfreude.  

 

Thank God for whoever set up the C19early.org site, as this details all the treatments, trials and meta-analysis for all to see.  

 

https://c19early.org/

 

Their HCQ page has some enlightening commentary: https://c19hcq.org/

 

"498 HCQ COVID-19 studies, 405 peer reviewed, 402 comparing treatment and control groups. Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay."  " HCQ/CQ was adopted in all or part of 42 countries (57 including non-government medical organizations)."

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 77% of prospective studies report positive effects, compared to 73% of retrospective studies. Studies from North America are 2.5 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world, p = 0.0000000277.

•Negative meta analyses of HCQ generally choose a small subset of trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very late treatment and excessive dosages.

-------------------

 

My own experience with HCQ & COVID changed my life.  I treated early, & my COVID was a walk in the park.  I literally spent a few hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  I'll never forgive Fauci & the flim-flam men who tried to keep this from me.  

 

 

Don't forget the fake studies that were broadcast widely by the incompetent and unethical US/UK health establishment and US national media meant to discredit the use of HCQ. Who produced these fake studies and for what reason? I suspect it is the same people who created fake doctor accounts on social media which spread fake information, fear, and hysteria about the number of COVID patients and their conditions. Most people do not have a clue how much they were manipulated into believing things about the COVID panic that were manifestly untrue.

 

Remember when the Henry Ford clinic was the subject of intense hatred (in this forum as well) when they reported beneficial results with the use of HCQ?

 

Even I was threatened with being fired if I talked about HCQ on my social media.

 

It was awful. This blistering hatred and harassment toward anything and everyone who tried to provide help and solutions during the COVID panic KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

[pamojja]

..because people who die of seasonal influenza infection also have underlying medical conditions that make them vulnerable to death. 

 

..then you would also have to discount influenza deaths because of the underlying medical conditions the influenza patients have.

 

You seem not aware, that before Covid the cause of death was always written on the death certificates. During Covid it was Covid almost exclusively, which was written on death certificates. Even when obvious it wasn't the cause of death.

[Hip]

You seem not aware, that before Covid the cause of death was always written on the death certificates. During Covid it was Covid almost exclusively, which was written on death certificates. Even when obvious it wasn't the cause of death.

 

That may be true, but the paper I quoted above took this fact into account when it estimated 25,000 influenza deaths each year. 

 

The paper said that when an influenza patient in hospital died of a bacterial co-infection, or died of another complication that appeared while the patient was in hospital treated for influenza, in their paper they still counted that as an influenza death.

 

So the figure of 25,000 influenza deaths includes deaths that were from other causes while the patient was sick in hospital with flu. 

 

So in this case, the counting methods for flu deaths are the same as the counting methods for COVID deaths. 

 

 

 

Thus we can use the influenza and COVID death figures I quote above to compare lethality of these two viruses, and it turns out that COVID is 3 times more lethal than flu, even with all the COVID preventative measures in place (measures like vaccination, masks, lockdowns, etc). If these preventative measures were not used, then we would have a lot more COVID deaths, and we would find that COVID is something like 10 times more lethal than flu.

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 07:55 PM.

[Hip]

Most people do not have a clue how much they were manipulated into believing things about the COVID panic that were manifestly untrue.

 

If we are talking about manipulating people's minds, there may be a lot of people reading the disinformation on these COVID threads on Longecity who are fooled into erroneously thinking that the COVID vaccines are not actually vaccines, that COVID vaccines alter your DNA, that COVID vaccines have little effect, that lockdowns are ineffective, that masks do not work, etc, etc.

 

All because of disinformation posted by people on Longecity.

 

If you want honesty in others, then people should not be lying themselves.

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 07:56 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Don't forget the fake studies that were broadcast widely by the incompetent and unethical US/UK health establishment and US national media meant to discredit the use of HCQ. Who produced these fake studies and for what reason? I suspect it is the same people who created fake doctor accounts on social media which spread fake information, fear, and hysteria about the number of COVID patients and their conditions. Most people do not have a clue how much they were manipulated into believing things about the COVID panic that were manifestly untrue.

 

Remember when the Henry Ford clinic was the subject of intense hatred (in this forum as well) when they reported beneficial results with the use of HCQ?

 

Even I was threatened with being fired if I talked about HCQ on my social media.

 

It was awful. This blistering hatred and harassment toward anything and everyone who tried to provide help and solutions during the COVID panic KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

 

I remember when HCQ got its EUA, granted ONLY for hospitalized patients and clinical trials.  Rick Bright, director of BARDA actually bragged he thought of this ploy to keep HCQ out of the outpatient pandemic response, "in order to keep US citizens safe".  

 

The EUA didn't actually forbid outpatient prescribing or use, but psychologically, the result was the same.  I remember I asked my GP about whether he might consider prescribing HCQ for me, & he said "not a chance...  It's far too dangerous for outpatient use".  

 

The most scandalous thing I noticed was how ALL of the major trials seemed to be on hospitalized patients.  Had we not learned anything from 25 years of Tamiflu & influenza?  The few outpatient studies that did occur required a positive PCR, which early on took several days.  

 

Funny how when it came time to trial Paxlovid, they suddenly re-remembered...  Oh yea, we better treat early if we want to see results.  

[Florin]

I think the biggest step that the South Koreans took was shutting down their borders almost as soon as the pandemic was announced by China and starting widespread testing.

 

Trump did actually try to impose strict limits on entry into the US ... and was roundly criticized as xenophobic by his political adversaries and the policy was quickly abandoned. One recalls the stunt by Speaker Pelosi where she marched in China Town in San Francisco to denounce the administration policy of shutting down most travel from China as racist and unfair.

 

Unless there was an early and complete closure of the border, the China-only closure probably wouldn't have been that effective. And even if a complete closure happened, it seems unlikely that it could have been sustainable.

[pamojja]

..when it estimated 25,000 influenza deaths each year.

 

..emphasis on estimated.

 

Just as when they announced millions saved through the covid shots. Estimated by an further growing exponential curve, which never rose. Guestimated, the shots did the job.

[Daniel Cooper]

Unless there was an early and complete closure of the border, the China-only closure probably wouldn't have been that effective. And even if a complete closure happened, it seems unlikely that it could have been sustainable.

 

Border closures did not need be sustained forever. South Korea and Taiwan starting re-opening their borders in the latter part of later part of 2021 and 2022 respectively.

 

At even the earlier date, the covid-19 virus had evolved to become more adapted to it's new human host and the fatality rate had fallen significantly.

 

Even had the US not have keep their borders closed that long, they might have bought themselves valuable breathing space where they might have delayed the breakout of the virus in the US some months whilst preparations were made.

 

It's just a reasonable thing - there is a dangerous new virus that has originated in a certain area. A country run along rational lines would shut down travel to and from the affected areas while the situation is assessed and plans can be made. That wasn't allowed to happen because there were political points to be scored by slinging charges of xenophobia and racism about.  Therefore making the best response to covid-19 took a back seat to politics on that issue and others.

 

 

 

 

[joesixpack]

Don't forget the fake studies that were broadcast widely by the incompetent and unethical US/UK health establishment and US national media meant to discredit the use of HCQ. Who produced these fake studies and for what reason? I suspect it is the same people who created fake doctor accounts on social media which spread fake information, fear, and hysteria about the number of COVID patients and their conditions. Most people do not have a clue how much they were manipulated into believing things about the COVID panic that were manifestly untrue.

 

Remember when the Henry Ford clinic was the subject of intense hatred (in this forum as well) when they reported beneficial results with the use of HCQ?

 

Even I was threatened with being fired if I talked about HCQ on my social media.

 

It was awful. This blistering hatred and harassment toward anything and everyone who tried to provide help and solutions during the COVID panic KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

 

Keep in mind, in order to issue an EUA for the vaccines, there had to be a finding that there was no known effective therapeutic to treat Covid. That is the real reason that HCQ and Ivermectin were discredited. Follow the money.

[Florin]

Border closures did not need be sustained forever. South Korea and Taiwan starting re-opening their borders in the latter part of later part of 2021 and 2022 respectively.

 

At even the earlier date, the covid-19 virus had evolved to become more adapted to it's new human host and the fatality rate had fallen significantly.

 

Even had the US not have keep their borders closed that long, they might have bought themselves valuable breathing space where they might have delayed the breakout of the virus in the US some months whilst preparations were made.

 

It's just a reasonable thing - there is a dangerous new virus that has originated in a certain area. A country run along rational lines would shut down travel to and from the affected areas while the situation is assessed and plans can be made. That wasn't allowed to happen because there were political points to be scored by slinging charges of xenophobia and racism about.  Therefore making the best response to covid-19 took a back seat to politics on that issue and others.

 

I agree that complete and sustained border closures should have happened, but I just don't think they were feasible. First, most experts thought they're ineffective. Second, almost no other country did this (except the usual suspects), so it wasn't just about politics. And again, I don't think a month-long border closure would buy all that much. At best, it would delay things by just a single month, and that wouldn't be enough time for milder variants to emerge. If this one-month delay would have been used wisely, it would have made sense, but it wasn't. So, you'd have even more economic and social damage (border closures on top of lockdowns) without much to show for it.

 

I suspect the only reason you got border closures in place like SK, was due to their SARS scare. The rest of the world was just too complacent to care about pandemics.

Edited by Florin, 25 July 2023 - 01:42 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Keep in mind, in order to issue an EUA for the vaccines, there had to be a finding that there was no known effective therapeutic to treat Covid. That is the real reason that HCQ and Ivermectin were discredited. Follow the money.

 

I have no doubt treatment was suppressed to facilitate the EUAs. 

 

What I can't help but wonder is, did they really do the math & realize a MILLION Americans would die because of this? 

 

No, we couldn't have saved them all, but even 100K/year saved in 20/21 would have been substantial. 

 

I'm not too good at math here, but if a Boeing 747 holds around 500 passengers, how many of these were we losing per month while the emperors fiddled?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 25 July 2023 - 02:50 AM.

[Hip]

Keep in mind, in order to issue an EUA for the vaccines, there had to be a finding that there was no known effective therapeutic to treat Covid. That is the real reason that HCQ and Ivermectin were discredited. Follow the money.

 

Sounds like your typical conspiracy theory that gets passed around the Internet on a hearsay basis, without anyone ever putting any thought into it,

 

In fact, there are were life saving COVID treatments available at the beginning of the pandemic: corticosteroids to suppress excessive lung inflammation, and supplemental oxygen for those struggling to breathe.

 

If your theory were true, then the use of corticosteroids, which every hospital employs in the COVID wards, would preclude the EUA.

[Dorian Grey]

Sounds like your typical conspiracy theory that gets passed around the Internet on a hearsay basis, without anyone ever putting any thought into it,

 

In fact, there are were life saving COVID treatments available at the beginning of the pandemic: corticosteroids to suppress excessive lung inflammation, and supplemental oxygen for those struggling to breathe.

 

If your theory were true, then the use of corticosteroids, which every hospital employs in the COVID wards, would preclude the EUA.

 

Don't know if a salvage operation (ventilators/steroids) in hospital would qualify as an EUA busting therapy, but an effective outpatient therapeutic certainly would.  

 

This looks like the quote from the FDA for EUA: "No alternative method of approved or generally recognized therapy is available that provides an equal or greater likelihood of saving the subject's life".

 

This is why they didn't want anyone taking anything outside of the hospital.  Isolate at home...  Make sure you're alone...  Call 911 if you can't breath or start turning blue.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 25 July 2023 - 03:16 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Yeah, pretty sure that corticosteroids and O2 therapy would be considered as you say "rescue therapy" and that the success rate of that is far from ideal and wouldn't meet the criteria of "equal or greater likelihood of saving the subject's life".

 

But by that same token, at the time the EAU was granted, the threshold of "equal or greater likelihood of saving the subject's life" was set unrealistically high. Recall that when these vaccines were first rolled out they were claimed to be about 96% effective and lasting a year or perhaps even more.

 

I don't know what the current claim is, but "a lot less effective and a lot shorter duration" would be safe to say.  I wonder how various antiviral therapies would stack up against the actual performance of the vaccines rather than against a performance that they never met.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 25 July 2023 - 02:22 PM.