Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

My comment is that "double blind studies" over periods of years are the best way to go. Unfortunately, that isn't practical under the current set of circumstances. Additionally, "anecdotal" data can be quite valuable, especially when large numbers of report are available. Yes, it makes "fine analysis" much harder, but if we had waited with any number of drugs, penicillin being one of them, how many more deaths would have occurred? Also, consider that the "dangerous" drug hydroxychlorquine is not, technically, FDA approved for use in lupus treatment, but it is routinely prescribed for that illness with the blessings of the medical community. Hypocrisy seems to exist in the medical field as well.

From the reports I have seen, Ivermectin, if administered immediately after a positive test result the symptoms were reduced, sometimes very significantly, when compared to people who didn't take it. Yes, anecdotal, but the number of reported successes with it are mounting and it is being used, with safety and success, here in the US as well. That Nature article painted it like it's grasping at straws to try it, but how did hydroxychlorquine get used for Lupus except by grasping at straws.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mat200, Jessie.slimer, bigredfish and 1 other person
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer and sebastiantombs
Here's another one that brings into question the reliability of tests. It's in German, I think, and I have no idea what the test being used is but it's interesting that a glass of Coke can have the CCP Virus at least according the the test used here.
 

Attachments

  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Jessie.slimer, bigredfish and Ssayer
sebastiantombs said:
There have also been multiple studies, peer reviewed and published in places like the Lancet, showing that lock downs, even extreme lock downs, have no real effect on the spread. Lock downs may slow the spread, note the word "may", but death rates for other things, suicide, violence, drugs, alcohol and other causes, seem to increase dramatically under lock downs.
Click to expand...
And just as many studies stating the opposite.
The is a social disease, transmitted from person to person and even animals. 3000 Americans died yesterday from covid - not suicide, violence, drugs, alcohol and other causes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
You're ignoring the point and reciting wuflu scare porn.

We all get that it kills some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kozmo2k and Ssayer
Jessie.slimer said:
Follow the science. Lock down the elderly and vulnerable. Let the younger and healthy (who are at almost zero risk of dying) keep the country and their livelihoods alive. Any healthy person who wants to lock down is welcome to, but sorry, no pay for you.
Click to expand...
There isn't a test to decide who's vulnerable and who's not, but who isn't vulnerable?
And 'almost zero risk of dying' is the same mentality as playing russian roulette.
Dead people cannot keep their livelihoods.
Many healthy people are sheltering, and getting paid.
 
DsineR said:
There isn't a test to decide who's vulnerable and who's not, but who isn't vulnerable?
.
Click to expand...

Same as many diseases, including the regular flu
 
  • Like
Reactions: kozmo2k, Jessie.slimer, Ssayer and 1 other person
bigredfish said:
Yeah we get that. Again not the point.
Click to expand...
It is the point.

If the single biggest cause of death right now (as measured daily) is an infectious disease, it stands to reason you can reduce death, as well as sickness, by not gathering in ways that transmit it. As we have rehashed ad nausea, the difference between a strong response to the disease and a weak response to the disease is about 10x, as PROVEN by the comparison of Sweden (light response) and Norway/Finland (strong response).

The US in the state it was a month or two ago classified as a pretty light response (most things open, most areas not doing much other than masks and some schools hybrid or virtual). As of today, we would be measured as a moderate response (increasing capacity limits and some elements of lockdown in a few areas). Had we not been so open late summer into fall, we would have a lot fewer deaths right now, and just as important, we would have a lot fewer extremely ill people in our hospitals.

The deaths get the headlines (appropriately so) but the sickness is a horrible scourge in its own right. Both personally, and in terms of its economic cost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
Obviously Vanatu did it right. We need to do what they did
 
bigredfish said:
Sweden deaths per 1M people 742 ranked 25 out of 220 (population 1/2 of Florida)
US deaths per 1M people 912 ranked 11 out of 220

Apparently 195 countries did better than Sweden
Coronavirus Update (Live): 71,396,696 Cases and 1,600,149 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

See we agree now that Sweden wasnt the poster child many said it was just not too many months ago
Click to expand...
It's important not to compare Sweden and US, but Sweden and Nordic countries nearly identical in culture and habits. 10x per capita difference in death and illness during the period before Sweden changed course.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
So what did Vanatu do?
 
And while were on the subject, why isnt there a single asian country in the top 100 based on deaths p/1M population?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
bigredfish said:
And while were on the subject, why isnt there a single asian country in the top 100 based on deaths p/1M population?
Click to expand...
Some countries we don't trust the data from, like China. Others like Japan and S. Korea did a lot more in terms of changes for isolation; the populations there don't argue when their health officials ask them to wear masks, or not eat out, or gather for worship. Less affluent Asian countries are used to infectious disease and taking measures to curb the spread is routine for them. Somewhere there is an interesting article on it; read it a few months back.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
Cuomo's New Ban Indoor Dining In NYC Is Abject Madness

"There is no excuse for this decision. Not only is the infection rate for restaurants and bars a meager 1.4 percent, the rate for households is 74 percent.

So let me posit a simple question. Now that friends are to be banned from sharing time together at a restaurant or pub, where will they gather? Oh, right, in households. Brilliant, governor, just brilliant. Don’t let us go where almost no one gets COVID, but shove us into the places where almost everyone does.

Even if the science had come back and suggested that restaurants were a major factor in spread, it still would have been a difficult decision to close them given the economic and human impact of that choice. But that isn’t the choice we face—the data make clear that eating out is not the problem here. The problem here is Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Meanwhile, in next door New Jersey which has similar numbers to New York, the restaurants are staying open. Huh. Is Gov. Phil Murphy suddenly a murderer? Or does he simply realize that science does not justify destroying tens of thousands of small businesses and driving consumers to online companies for their basic sustenance."
 
  • Sad
Reactions: sebastiantombs and Ssayer
Frankenscript said:
Some countries we don't trust the data from, like China. Others like Japan and S. Korea did a lot more in terms of changes for isolation; the populations there don't argue when their health officials ask them to wear masks, or not eat out, or gather for worship. Less affluent Asian countries are used to infectious disease and taking measures to curb the spread is routine for them. Somewhere there is an interesting article on it; read it a few months back.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


60% of the worlds population and not a single asian country in the top 100 by deaths per/1M population... amazing
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs, Ssayer and Frankenscript
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom