No evidence Govt Covid Efforts accomplished anything

[LordBrownTrout]

The economy wouldn't be about to fall into the abyss nor would several million be out of work if we wouldn't have shut everything down.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

In addition, Sweden has had for the second wave a much smaller excess mortality than France, Italy or Spain, an observation which allows one to suspect that lockdown measures are delaying the establishment of herd immunity. This is not desirable, as the time during which the old, sick and frail can be exposed to the virus gets longer.

Achieving "natural herd immunity" by letting everyone get COVID is exactly why variants are occurring that would evade the immune response and perpetuate the pandemic.

It's a bad plan and we are seeing exactly why it's a bad plan.

No, its not a bad plan. Delaying and prolonging this situation is a bad plan. Thats common sense.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They must have worked because I have never had Covid-19

There are literally a hundred million americans out there who never did shit and never got covid...? lol

Same here. Didn't wear masks or listen to their propaganda. Not taking their mRNA shots either.

 

[colfax_m]

No, its not a bad plan. Delaying and prolonging this situation is a bad plan. Thats common sense.

It is a bad plan. Not only does it result in large numbers of deaths, hospitalization and chronic disease, it also leads to mutated viruses which evade the immunity you've achieved.

It sabotages itself.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, its not a bad plan. Delaying and prolonging this situation is a bad plan. Thats common sense.

It is a bad plan. Not only does it result in large numbers of deaths, hospitalization and chronic disease, it also leads to mutated viruses which evade the immunity you've achieved.

It sabotages itself.

No, it doesn't. When you prolong and allow this to fester you allow more mutations. Again, that's just common sense.

 

[colfax_m]

No, it doesn't. When you prolong and allow this to fester you allow more mutations. Again, that's just common sense.

How do you think mutations happen?

They happen because of replications.

More infections = more replications

You don't get to "herd immunity" without infecting the vast majority of the population, which is what causes mutations.

I don't know what you mean by "allow this to fester". Mutations are not time dependent. They're replication dependent.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, it doesn't. When you prolong and allow this to fester you allow more mutations. Again, that's just common sense.

How do you think mutations happen?

They happen because of replications.

More infections = more replications

You don't get to "herd immunity" without infecting the vast majority of the population, which is what causes mutations.

I don't know what you mean by "allow this to fester". Mutations are not time dependent. They're replication dependent.

When you prolong and allow a virus to ebb and flow, you allow mutations which is exactly what we're doing.

 

[colfax_m]

When you prolong and allow a virus to ebb and flow, you allow mutations which is exactly what we're doing.

If you don’t prolong, you allow the virus to flow, which creates FAR more mutations.

The “ebb” is irrelevant. Viruses don’t mutate when they don’t infect.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

When you prolong and allow a virus to ebb and flow, you allow mutations which is exactly what we're doing.

If you don’t prolong, you allow the virus to flow, which creates FAR more mutations.

The “ebb” is irrelevant. Viruses don’t mutate when they don’t infect.

Yes it is relevant because it prolongs the virus. You're stating the obvious about mutations but you're ignoring the time allowed for the virus to mutate ie continued lockdowns, then easing up, then lockdowns etc............

 

[colfax_m]

Yes it is relevant because it prolongs the virus. You're stating the obvious about mutations but you're ignoring the time allowed for the virus to mutate ie continued lockdowns, then easing up, then lockdowns etc............

Listen to me very carefully.

Mutations are not dependent on time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No, it doesn't. When you prolong and allow this to fester you allow more mutations. Again, that's just common sense.

How do you think mutations happen?

They happen because of replications.

More infections = more replications

You don't get to "herd immunity" without infecting the vast majority of the population, which is what causes mutations.

I don't know what you mean by "allow this to fester". Mutations are not time dependent. They're replication dependent.

And govt plan did nothing to prevent that. Latest mutation is in CA ooooooppps

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yes it is relevant because it prolongs the virus. You're stating the obvious about mutations but you're ignoring the time allowed for the virus to mutate ie continued lockdowns, then easing up, then lockdowns etc............

Listen to me very carefully.

Mutations are not dependent on time.

Govt can't stop mutations

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes it is relevant because it prolongs the virus. You're stating the obvious about mutations but you're ignoring the time allowed for the virus to mutate ie continued lockdowns, then easing up, then lockdowns etc............

Listen to me very carefully.

Mutations are not dependent on time.

You're not listening.

 

[colfax_m]

You're not listening.

I’ve listened to you enough to identify and correct your fundamental error in logic.

Time is irrelevant. Infections is.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yes it is relevant because it prolongs the virus. You're stating the obvious about mutations but you're ignoring the time allowed for the virus to mutate ie continued lockdowns, then easing up, then lockdowns etc............

Listen to me very carefully.

Mutations are not dependent on time.

Govt can't stop mutations

Indeed, they cannot. They will happen, no matter what.

The question we must answer, is, will this gene therapy which is be fobbed off as a vaccine, interfere with T-cell background immunity which could be instrumental in fighting the variations, and thus cause deadly cytokine storms, or will it be effective in fighting the variations?

There is some preliminary evidence, that the vaccine might be doing more harm than good.

 

[colfax_m]

There is some preliminary evidence, that the vaccine might be doing more harm than good.

Let’s see the evidence.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is some preliminary evidence, that the vaccine might be doing more harm than good.

Let’s see the evidence.

Search Results from the VAERS Database

Search Results from the VAERS Database

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

" . . . The incidences of immediate side effects in both trials were significant and dwarfed the absolute risk reduction in both the primary efficacy endpoints, as well as for “severe” Covid.

For example, for Moderna 81.9% experienced any systemic reaction. Grade 3 reactions (considered severe) were experienced by 17.4%. This is 79X more likely than the incidence of severe Covid in the Moderna group. (17.4/.22=79X) Based on preliminary reports of adverse events [emphasis added]:

This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.“

The safety data for both companies is approximately only two months before receiving emergency use authorization status. Therefore, there is no data for mid-long term side effects, as the trials are ongoing.

The estimated completion date for Pfizer/BioNtech trials is Jan 31, 2023. The estimate completion date for Moderna trials is October 27, 2022.

According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna) the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”. It is therefore baffling how medical doctors and public health officials are proclaiming these SGTs will promote herd immunity.

The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown. Therefore, the 1% absolute risk reduction in mild/moderate, cold/flu symptoms may not last more than a few months. . . . "

 

[colfax_m]

There is some preliminary evidence, that the vaccine might be doing more harm than good.

Let’s see the evidence.

Search Results from the VAERS Database

Search Results from the VAERS Database

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…

off-guardian.org

" . . . The incidences of immediate side effects in both trials were significant and dwarfed the absolute risk reduction in both the primary efficacy endpoints, as well as for “severe” Covid.

For example, for Moderna 81.9% experienced any systemic reaction. Grade 3 reactions (considered severe) were experienced by 17.4%. This is 79X more likely than the incidence of severe Covid in the Moderna group. (17.4/.22=79X) Based on preliminary reports of adverse events [emphasis added]:

This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.“

The safety data for both companies is approximately only two months before receiving emergency use authorization status. Therefore, there is no data for mid-long term side effects, as the trials are ongoing.

The estimated completion date for Pfizer/BioNtech trials is Jan 31, 2023. The estimate completion date for Moderna trials is October 27, 2022.

According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna) the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”. It is therefore baffling how medical doctors and public health officials are proclaiming these SGTs will promote herd immunity.

The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown. Therefore, the 1% absolute risk reduction in mild/moderate, cold/flu symptoms may not last more than a few months. . . . "

So many problems. First, the safety data says grade 3 reactions were 1.5% of the treatment group, not 17%. They’re straight up lying. Furthermore, that was nearly identical to the severe reactions in the placebo, which goes to show that severe reactions to the vaccine are usually just coincidences.

Second, the vaccine trials weren’t intended to determine if it reduces transmission. Further data has been showing that for us after the vaccine trials. It’s dishonest to say that they don’t reduce transmission simply because the trial wasn’t designed to show that.

Last, the trials were published with 2 months of data, so yeah, they can’t say the immunity lasts longer than that. They almost certainly will be able to say it does once the trial goes on for a longer time frame.

I hate anti-vaccine bullshit.

 

[bendog]

As we approach the one-year anniversary of fifteen days to flatten the curve, we have yet to acquire any data suggesting that the past year of life-destroying lockdowns and politicized behavioral mandates has done anything to keep us safe from covid-19. While discussions surrounding the reintroduction of nationwide lockdowns seem to have ceased—it's impossible to ignore the lockdowns' disproportionately deadly effects and the numerous studies demonstrating their futility—the media still retain their grip on the narrative that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mask mandates, curfews, capacity restrictions, gathering restrictions, and others remain necessary to prevail in our fight against covid-19 Almost a Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control the Spread of Covid-19 | Mises Wire
Can we put this all down to what not to do in the future. Its getting to the point of ,,,what can we make them do next

Well life expectency dropped by one year for whites and three for blacks, so whatever we did, wasn't enough. I think Biden's got vaccine distribution in hand now, finally. Most states seem to be administering about the same % of doses per population. And production is increasing.

 

[busybee01]

As we approach the one-year anniversary of fifteen days to flatten the curve, we have yet to acquire any data suggesting that the past year of life-destroying lockdowns and politicized behavioral mandates has done anything to keep us safe from covid-19. While discussions surrounding the reintroduction of nationwide lockdowns seem to have ceased—it's impossible to ignore the lockdowns' disproportionately deadly effects and the numerous studies demonstrating their futility—the media still retain their grip on the narrative that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mask mandates, curfews, capacity restrictions, gathering restrictions, and others remain necessary to prevail in our fight against covid-19 Almost a Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control the Spread of Covid-19 | Mises Wire
Can we put this all down to what not to do in the future. Its getting to the point of ,,,what can we make them do next

The trouble is that you had no national policy. You had 50 states each with their own policies. Sone states did the right thing while others did nothing. New Zealand's government instituted a national lockdown for nearly a month. They busted the curve. Trump and his supporters refused to take this seriously. That is where the fault lies.