980 replies to this topic

[Mind]

I wonder if the food shortages in China are related to COVID shutdowns. Maybe, maybe not. They did have bad flooding earlier this Summer.

 

https://www.theorgan...hortages-china/

 

Some might find it surprising, but China produces a surprising amount of some food stuffs. They produce most of the world's cabbage, garlic, apples, and carrots, among other things.

 

At least grains are in good supply, it seems, around the world.

 

 

[Mind]

It wouldn't hurt to stock up a little on store-able food, IMO. It would make good food to donate as well, if it is not personally used.

 

US Foodbank claims they will be short 8 billion meals over the next 12 months: https://www.washingt...eeding-america/

 

New Jersey struggling to feed the hungry: https://cfbnj.org/covidimpact/

[geo12the]

Interesting story from the NYTimes this morning:

 

"She hopes to tame the chaos with a new effort from the Biden administration. In the next couple of months, she said, the government plans to start large and well-organized trials for existing drugs that could be repurposed to fight Covid-19. “We are actively working on that,” Dr. Woodcock said."

 

https://www.nytimes....antivirals.html

 

 

How the Search for Covid-19 Treatments Faltered While Vaccines Sped Ahead

Vaccine development exceeded everyone’s expectations. But the next few months will still bring many sick people — and doctors have woefully few drugs with which to treat them.

 

 

Nearly a year into the coronavirus pandemic, as thousands of patients are dying every day in the United States and widespread vaccination is still months away, doctors have precious few drugs to fight the virus.

A handful of therapies — remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies and the steroid dexamethasone — have improved the care of Covid patients, putting doctors in a better position than they were when the virus surged last spring. But these drugs are not cure-alls and they’re not for everyone, and efforts to repurpose other drugs, or discover new ones, have not had much success.

The government poured $18.5 billion into vaccines, a strategy that resulted in at least five effective products at record-shattering speed. But its investment in drugs was far smaller, about $8.2 billion, most of which went to just a few candidates, such as monoclonal antibodies. Studies of other drugs were poorly organized.

 

 

[Florin]

The best cure-all is reusable elastomeric respirators. The obsession with vaccines and treatments has caused millions of deaths and counting.

[Mind]

Glenn Greenwald is correct. It is bizarre that there is near zero cost-benefit analysis in regards to COVID policy. Follow Greenwald on Rumble because Youtube censors most rational discussion and opinion.

 

Current COVID policies are hardly any different than religious edicts. Followers of the edicts are quick to dismiss all rational discussion. It is as if their minds are corrupted by fear.

 

Even science itself is suffering a credibility problem. Censoring all discussion that questions the COVID edicts is not science. The people who keep saying "follow the science" when silencing all diverging opinions might as well be saying "follow the religion".

[geo12the]

Glenn Greenwald is correct. It is bizarre that there is near zero cost-benefit analysis in regards to COVID policy. Follow Greenwald on Rumble because Youtube censors most rational discussion and opinion.

 

Current COVID policies are hardly any different than religious edicts. Followers of the edicts are quick to dismiss all rational discussion. It is as if their minds are corrupted by fear.

 

Even science itself is suffering a credibility problem. Censoring all discussion that questions the COVID edicts is not science. The people who keep saying "follow the science" when silencing all diverging opinions might as well be saying "follow the religion".

 

There was a time when we eliminated polio.  There was not grand drama about the polio vaccines (or smallpox vaccines). Back then there was no internet and people were not hyped up by tribalism and seduced by engaging slick charlatans peddling conspiracy theories. There is truth and there is distortion but now facts are disputed: No mater what your political bent is the fact is vaccines prevent death and sickness. Everything else is political fluff drama. 

[DanCG]

There was a time when we eliminated polio.  There was not grand drama about the polio vaccines (or smallpox vaccines). Back then there was no internet and people were not hyped up by tribalism and seduced by engaging slick charlatans peddling conspiracy theories. There is truth and there is distortion but now facts are disputed: No mater what your political bent is the fact is vaccines prevent death and sickness. Everything else is political fluff drama. 

Polio and smallpox were eliminated with vaccines that produced immunity that stopped infection so thoroughly that the virus could not spread. The current COVID-19 vaccines do not do this. Also, smallpox and polio viruses do not have animal reservoirs -> stop the spread in humans, stop the spread period. Not so with coronaviruses. You can't eliminate a virus that can continue to multiply in animals. We can only hope to minimize the damage. Vaccines should be part of the strategy, but we need treatments too.  Doubts about the vaccines are not all politically motivated or internet-induced hysteria, they are based on science.

[geo12the]

Polio and smallpox were eliminated with vaccines that produced immunity that stopped infection so thoroughly that the virus could not spread. The current COVID-19 vaccines do not do this. Also, smallpox and polio viruses do not have animal reservoirs -> stop the spread in humans, stop the spread period. Not so with coronaviruses. You can't eliminate a virus that can continue to multiply in animals. We can only hope to minimize the damage. Vaccines should be part of the strategy, but we need treatments too.  Doubts about the vaccines are not all politically motivated or internet-induced hysteria, they are based on science.

 

If you think about it say you are vaccinated against some disease and then get exposed. Your body has antibodies that fight off the pathogen but there may be a window of time before it's eliminated. Sterilizing vaccines are able to eliminate the pathogen fastest, before it gets a foothold, but not all vaccines are completely sterilizing.

 

This is an interesting article that points out that “In reality, the spectrum of protection might best be framed as the extent to which vaccination prevents transmission of the wild-type virus or bacteria,”. 

 

It's true that the current vaccines do not completely eliminate the spread of COVID. BUT breakthrough cases are not common AND it's likely those folks are less transmissible or have a shorter window of time where they are transmissible. In a perfect world the COVID vaccines would be completely sterilizing but the world is not perfect. The vaccines do reduce infection and are highly effective at preventing severe illness. At the end of the day if more people were vaccinated less people would be suffering and dying. That is indisputable. 

 

We live in weird times. Political extremes hold too much sway. I do some work with start-up companies and have seen how style is often much more important than substance in determining what companies and technologies get funded. And I think in our kooky internet age,  style rules and substance gets the short-shrift. People are seduced by slick charlatans who cater to their emotions and political tribal leanings and feed them nonsense. Science and facts take a back seat. 

[Oakman]

This entire thread and the on-going discussion concerning the virus and how to deal with it in our times, shows, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that mankind, with all it's (ahem) intelligence, money, and even potential to create, pales in most all respects in a war with an infinitesimally small particle, invisible to our natural senses, and created in our own universe, and made with the direct assistance of whatever powers that there may be that we have yet to comprehend. And it is just one of billions with similar potential yet unleashed.

 

I doubt the future will be any more kind. And we are obviously our own worst enemy.

Edited by Oakman, 04 September 2021 - 01:40 PM.

[Mind]

 

At the end of the day if more people were vaccinated less people would be suffering and dying. That is indisputable. 

 

It is most definitely disputable. The country with one of the highest vaccination rates is experiencing record numbers of cases. Most hospitalizations and deaths are now among the vaccinated. Before the vaccination campaign, a wave of COVID brought about 75 deaths per day. Now they are topping out around 50 per day. That is an improvement, but not great. It is worth a discussion. It is worth a cost-benefit analysis, especially considering the under-reported severe side effects of the vaccines.

Edited by Mind, 04 September 2021 - 04:06 PM.

[geo12the]

It is most definitely disputable. The country with one of the highest vaccination rates is experiencing record numbers of cases. Most hospitalizations and deaths are now among the vaccinated. Before the vaccination campaign, a wave of COVID brought about 75 deaths per day. Now they are topping out around 50 per day. That is an improvement, but not great. It is worth a discussion. It is worth a cost-benefit analysis, especially considering the under-reported severe side effects of the vaccines.

 

I am not really surprised about where we are in terms of the surges. I expected it to happen. You have a large chunk of people who are vaxed and a chunk of people who are unvaxed. Then you relax the precautions (social distancing, masking etc.). What on earth would you predict is going to happen? The virus will spread like wildfire in the un-vaxed folks. And that is exactly what is happening. Why are people so surprised? The vaccines were meant to benefit the vaxed and they are are- though immunity wanes over time, they keep you from getting severely ill. If you look at the numbers in Israel, and I did, the vaccines are still keeping people from severe illness and death.  

 

I don't have the answers, no one does because we are in unchartered waters. BUT I am more optimistic about the situation than pessimistic.  Why? Because the danger of COVID was that the virus was new to our immune systems. Now vaxed folks have had their immune system introduced and the virus is less deadly to them. The unvaxed will continue to have their immune systems introduced to the virus but the journey for many of them will be more painful, and in some cases lethal, as the virus wrecks their bodies.

 

The virus will continue to evolve to spread itself more efficiently and maybe more efficiently evade vaccines. How will the evolution of the virus manifest? Lucky for us increased lethality is not a benefit for it to spread itself. Does that make sense? There is an evolutional benefit for the COVID virus to spread faster but not an evolutionary benefit for it to kill us. That is another reason I am optimistic. The next few months will be rocky but I think the worst is past us.

 

Though I think the worst is behind us, I think we are painfully unready for the next pandemic. Are we ready for the next virus? And what if the next virus spreads as easily as COVID but has the lethality of Ebola?  

 

I hope that my rant was "ill informed"  and "dangerous and irresponsible" enough to rattle some of your pandemic filter bubbles. I will be waiting for those reviews LOL! 

[pamojja]

https://www.covid19a...rs-open-letter/

 

 

A letter signed by more than 130 UK medical professionals accused UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other government officials of causing "massive, permanent and unnecessary harm" to the country

22 August 2021

 

Dear Sirs and Madam,

 

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

 

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally "smeared" by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

 

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

• The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter "you" or the "Government") have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
• These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
• You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
• Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
• The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
• Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

 

1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

 

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

 

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

 

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

 

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

 

2. Institutional nature of COVID

 

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease, as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS.

 

Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

 

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

 

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

 

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

 

3. The exaggerated nature of the threat

 

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible 'case' rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying 'with COVID' and not 'of COVID' where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

 

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

 

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born.

 

This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government's messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

 

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased's death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a "COVID death" by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate.

 

Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

 

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

 

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

 

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of "fear messaging". The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense -- hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that "Long Covid" is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

 

4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere

 

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed.

 

For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

 

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

 

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government's interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government's agenda.

 

Whatever one's view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

 

5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear

 

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

 

To give just one example, the government's face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies.

 

Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2.

 

Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental.

 

This has been particularly distressing for the nation's school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

 

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

 

6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses

 

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains -- especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination -- is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified.

 

Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

 

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of 'convergent evolution') and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

 

7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions

 

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith.

 

Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies.

 

In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

 

The government's claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions.

 

The government's messaging to 'act as if you have the virus' has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

 

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of 'cases', is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness.

 

Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country's economy.

 

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings.

 

The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred.

 

Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear.

The government appears to be talking of "learning to live with COVID" while apparently practicing by stealth a "zero COVID" strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

 

8. Mass testing of healthy children

 

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

 

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive 'cases', none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

 

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

 

9. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions

 

Based merely on early "promising" vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed -- without proper debate or rigorous analysis -- to the entire adult population).

 

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

 

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as "fully informed" must be in serious doubt:

• The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
• The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines -- which have no associated long-term safety data -- could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

 

10. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

 

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

 

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

 

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

 

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit -- they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

 

Conclusions

 

The UK's approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group -- the elderly -- the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.

 

Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

 

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms.

 

To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with -- according to the previous Health Secretary -- a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

 

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms.

 

As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to "first do no harm", and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed "cures" which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

 

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

 

Click here, for the complete list of signatories.

 

[Oakman]

There is so much BS in the above diatribe it is hardly worth the effort to refute it, but I thought one statement was particularly loathsomely and summarized the cavalier attitude expressed throughout ...

 

"The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about."

 

Just a guess, but the people worldwide who are not DEAD from it yet, but likely mortally afflicted with the Delta variant, might tend to disagree.

 

PS. Temporarily leaving out the upcoming MU variant, that may be treatment resistant.

Edited by Oakman, 07 September 2021 - 03:04 PM.

[Oakman]

I appreciate people asking for some references in the previous post that I neglected to add, so here are just a few of the many references concerning SARS COVID-19 variants, such as the Delta and Mu, that are available online.

 

Delta variant: 8 things you should know about this COVID-19 strain

1. Delta variant is highly contagious
2. Delta variant symptoms are the same
3. Delta variant is affecting unvaccinated people more
4. Breakthrough cases for vaccinated people are rare, but do happen
5. Delta variant could be catastrophic in some communities
6. Many unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 wish they had gotten the vaccine
7. Some experts are recommending to wear masks, even if you're fully vaccinated
8. More COVID-19 variants are likely to come

 

 ***** New Covid-19 Variants In One Country Pose A Threat To All Countries *****

 

WHO says delta remains the ‘most concerning’ Covid variant despite emergence of mu

 

What You Need to Know about Variants | CDC

 

Ineffective neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Mu variant by convalescent and 2 vaccine sera

 

 

Edited by Oakman, 08 September 2021 - 11:36 PM.

[pamojja]

Only if you trust authorities who repeatedly have lied to us. And not 100s of physicians working at the health-care front for their patients, and risking with their opposition havng their reputation smeared.
 

There is so much BS in the above diatribe it is hardly worth the effort to refute it, but I thought one statement was particularly loathsomely and summarized the cavalier attitude expressed throughout ...
 
"The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about.[/size]"
 
Just a guess, but the people worldwide who are not DEAD from it yet, but likely mortally afflicted with the Delta variant, might tend to disagree.
 
PS. Temporarily leaving out the upcoming MU variant, that may be treatment resistant.

 
Let the variants in thousands of mutations thrive!
 
At least here in 29 monitored regions of Europe they caused for 7 regions an exceptonally unusual lower then normal excess mortality, in 20 perfectly normal excess mortality, but only in 2 regions (Belgium and Spain) momentarily a substancial increase, but still very far from any other moderately severe flu seasons.
 
 charts-z-scores-by-country.png   249.85KB   0 downloads

https://www.euromomo...graphs-and-maps

[Oakman]

Only if you trust authorities who repeatedly have lied to us. And not 100s of physicians working at the health-care front for their patients, and risking with their opposition havng their reputation smeared.
 

 
Let the variants in thousands of mutations thrive!
 
At least here in 29 monitored regions of Europe they caused for 7 regions an exceptonally unusual lower then normal excess mortality, in 20 perfectly normal excess mortality, but only in 2 regions (Belgium and Spain) momentarily a substancial increase, but still very far from any other moderately severe flu seasons.
 
charts-z-scores-by-country.png

https://www.euromomo...graphs-and-maps

 

Those graphs are quite confusing visually, but one, the "All Ages - Excess Deaths" so far this year (2021) are well above pre-pandemic 2019, and a near match to 2020, to the tune of (so far) 200,000 people. No matter how you slice and dice it into smaller groupings to suit your argument, that's a heck of a lot of extra death.

 

Lastly regarding variants: The SARS Covid-19 virus IS A VARIANT. Think about that. Sure it was a 1 in a whatever chance it even exists.... but it came into being... and has caused untold world-wide (not just Europe) suffering and death.

 

That is the threat from variants... no one knows what will come next from allowing the virus a host (people) to continue to multiply and mutate as it infects, as viruses are known to do.

 

Sadly, the pandemic has laid bare the fact that many people are 'fact-resistant" nowadays, believing in whatever suits them. So feel free to carry on...

[pamojja]

Those graphs are quite confusing visually, but one, the "All Ages - Excess Deaths" so far this year (2021) are well above pre-pandemic 2019, and a near match to 2020, to the tune of (so far) 200,000 people. No matter how you slice and dice it into smaller groupings to suit your argument, that's a heck of a lot of extra death.

Understandably you got confused, but these chart don't show only 200.000 excess deaths at all: during the summers deaths always bottom out at about 65.000, during winter always reach about 75.000 - note: these are weekly figures!

 

The very sharp peak of the first wave reached 110.000 for only one week. The second a bid broader peaked at about 100.000. Therefore I assume you, just not knowing how to read those charts, added up these exceptional 2 weeks out of the whole 78 weeks passed, to arrive at the 200.000 number.
 
Thereby you forgot to subtract the base-line mortality of thwice 75.000 per week. Reducing your exagerated number for those worst 2 weeks within the last 1 1/2 years to mere 50.000 for most of Europe. And that only durng those extraordinary worse 2 weeks.

 

But overall the chart show there were only 2 waves exceeding normal mortality and lasting for about 1/2 year total - out of 1 and 1/2 of last years, while not exceeding by much the regular flu seasons of 2017 or 2018 only.

 

If one would look further back, like 20 years, one would find then those excess numbers have been reached even every year back than only.
 

Lastly regarding variants: The SARS Covid-19 virus IS A VARIANT. Think about that. Sure it was a 1 in a whatever chance it even exists.... but it came into being... and has caused untold world-wide (not just Europe) suffering and death.

 
You are right in that alpha seems to have caused most deaths. But you seem ignoring that already since this April there isn't any exceptional excess mortality anymore - rather exceptional lower mortality in some European countries.

 

Which can only mean delta, mu or omega, have mutated to less severity (as cold viruses, of which coronas are a subgroup, always do for not loosing too many hosts essential for their further spread) and are now already too weak to fear anymore.

Edited by pamojja, 09 September 2021 - 06:17 PM.

[Oakman]

Seems we are talking past each other. No matter.

Personally I hope you are right here, without question.

In the Quantum universe neither you or I are in control.

Come back in a year, we'll know more then.

But likely not enough.

Cheers.

 

[Mind]

Early in the pandemic there was an incident on an Argentinian fishing vessel. The crew all tested and isolated before leaving on their trip.... 35 days later, they had to come back to port because of an outbreak of COVID.

 

"Experts were puzzled".

 

This should have given health bureaucrats some pause about the effectiveness of testing, isolation, and lockdowns.

 

It didn't.

 

Now we have an incident that further demonstrates the utter and total failure and FUTILITY of all bureaucratic COVID responses thus far.

 

An outbreak of COVID hit the Belgian Antarctic research station. Two thirds of them, so far, have caught COVID. Everyone going to Antarctica has to isolate, test (multiple times before and during their journey), and be vaccinated. Researchers on Antarctica are also isolated from other stations on the island.

 

"Experts are puzzled".

 

6 foot spacing did not stop the pandemic. Sterilizing surfaces did not stop the pandemic. Self-isolation has not stopped the panic. Plastic barriers did not stop the pandemic. Masking did not stop the pandemic. mRNA therapies (COVID shots) have not stopped the pandemic. In fact, there is some data to indicate these pandemic responses have made things worse.

 

When will more effort be put into helping people by promoting treatments? Treatments should have be one of the main responses from the beginning.

[Mind]

It was common sense that children would suffer greatly from masking, isolation, germ-a-phobic adults, virtual learning, and other pandemic responses. If you mentioned this in 2020, you were violently dismissed online as a nut-job, conspiracy theorist, anti-science death cult member, what-not.

 

I am glad more people are now taking a stance and fighting back against the "health" bureaucrats in the U.S.: https://thefederalis...ts-theyre-evil/

 

Even the Atlantic - which has run cover for all of the bad, counterproductive, nonsense pandemic responses - is now calling out the CDC's, FDA's, and NIH's "dumpster fire" of guidance.

[Mind]

Promoting fear should NOT have been a public policy response for COVID. Constant fear lowers immune response.

 

UK government used excessive fear-mongering - greatly exaggerating the risks - in order to coerce the public into complying with various government edicts.

[Mind]

Now that health authorities and governments are reversing many previous guidelines/positions on the pandemic, catching up on "the science", and stating things that were common knowledge, there will be a reckoning. People whose careers were destroyed, people who were labeled as kooks, nuts, anti-science, conspiracy freaks, are going to make sure there is corrective action taken.

 

In non-scientific political moves, the Czech republic and the UK end mandates and other COVID restrictions.

 

Many commentators are noticing and are angry about it. The blowback is not deserved in every case, but it is coming.

 

https://articles.mer...cal-u-turn.aspx

How much was a psyop

"Zero Covid" a total failure of public health.

The narrative is crumbling

The "casedemic" is over?

 

Edited by Mind, 21 January 2022 - 09:23 PM.

[syr_]

The only Countries which had effective policy measures have been China and Korea.

[Mind]

The only Countries which had effective policy measures have been China and Korea.

 

Hard to know how effective the policy measures were in China and North Korea because their "data" is heavily edited/managed by their central governments.

[Mind]

The leader of New Zealand created a suicide epidemic with draconian COVID restrictions (a similar situation in many countries). A lot of child psychologists warned about this. They were censored, blacklisted, fired, and pilloried as flat-earthers, kooks, anti-science idiots, etc... Health bureaucrats should have listened. Different policies could have minimized suicide, depression, drug abuse, what-not, in the world's youth.

 

More people are commenting on the utter tragedy emerging in the world's youth. 

 

People remember the absurdities and uselessness of many COVID restrictions/policies. Expect more accounting of the failures. 

[geo12the]

Now that health authorities and governments are reversing many previous guidelines/positions on the pandemic, catching up on "the science", and stating things that were common knowledge, there will be a reckoning. People whose careers were destroyed, people who were labeled as kooks, nuts, anti-science, conspiracy freaks, are going to make sure there is corrective action taken.

 

In non-scientific political moves, the Czech republic and the UK end mandates and other COVID restrictions.

 

Many commentators are noticing and are angry about it. The blowback is not deserved in every case, but it is coming.

 

https://articles.mer...cal-u-turn.aspx

How much was a psyop

"Zero Covid" a total failure of public health.

The narrative is crumbling

The "casedemic" is over?

 

At the end of the day COVID was an unprecedented occurrence in our lifetimes. I don't have any illusions that the repose from the "health authorities" was perfect. It wasn't. But what was worse was the far-right wing news ecosystem that spread misinformation and exaggerated the missteps and fed anti-vax hysteria that resulted in people dying. That is the ecosystem you, and others here, are marinating in. That ecosystem is full of misinformation and distortions and riles people like you up. That ecosystem convinces people everyone else is a sheep while turning it's followers into obedient sheep.  That ecosystem is not reality. 

Edited by geo12the, 25 January 2022 - 06:31 PM.

[syr_]

Hard to know how effective the policy measures were in China and North Korea because their "data" is heavily edited/managed by their central governments.

What those regimes hide is the real numbers of the victims. The policies are open and there have been journalistic reports during the pandemic and more recently.

About Korea is different, as I referred to South Korea, where the policies were completely different, based on accurate contagion tracking.

 

Whoever asked for reference, can just use Google. It's not scientific papers.

[Mind]

At the end of the day COVID was an unprecedented occurrence in our lifetimes. I don't have any illusions that the repose from the "health authorities" was perfect. It wasn't. But what was worse was the far-right wing news ecosystem that spread misinformation and exaggerated the missteps and fed anti-vax hysteria that resulted in people dying. That is the ecosystem you, and others here, are marinating in. That ecosystem is full of misinformation and distortions and riles people like you up. That ecosystem convinces people everyone else is a sheep while turning it's followers into obedient sheep.  That ecosystem is not reality. 

 

The scorched-earth policy against anyone trying to help COVID patients with modalities that didn't involve remdesivir and ventilators is what caused more deaths than necessary. I recall when CNN, ABC, NBC used their platforms to ridicule, harass, and censor the idea that people should "get healthy", lose weight, take vitamin D3, or other nutrients, to increase their chances of having a mild case of COVID. US National media is an embarrassment.

[Mind]

More people are being vocal about the less-than-stellar performance of the health bureaucracies over the last two years - noting all of the reversals on guidance/facts/narratives recently.

 

The censorship of real science and real data that did not "fit the narrative" is particularly alarming for society at large. The scorched-earth policy - literally trying to destroy the lives of thousands of doctors and researchers around the world - has been horrific to watch.

 

I notice more people are taking down names of the fact checkers and policy makers, looking at legal remedies for the ill-effects of the failed pandemic response.

[Mind]

Random personalities making videos on the interwebs have better policy proposals than public health bureaucrats.