What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Vaccines vs Ivermectin

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,143
Reaction score
12,172
Points
1,560
Wrong.
You obviously did not read the article.
The headline says India may have had 10 times as many covid deaths than reported, but the article says many of those are suicides, malnutrition, or other deaths related to the panic, not the actual virus infection.
And the accuracy failure by the government was due to population dislocation and was more like only 20% off, not a factor of 10.
{...
Dr. Aniket Sirohi, a municipal health official in south Delhi, told NPR he counted 702 deaths on a day in mid-April and passed those numbers up the chain of command. But the death figures the government has published for his region have been at least 20% lower than what he's seeing on the ground, he said.
...}
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for the “inaccuracies”
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
7,724
Reaction score
12,586
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
Awwww. You have the sadz?

The funnies, actually. But please, continue to tell us about the "hOrsE dEworMeR!" and the "truthy truth" about Ivermectin, straight from the billionaire pharma corporations.

LOL!
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,143
Reaction score
12,172
Points
1,560
We know India is no where herd immunity because they only have 33 million cases, out of a population of 7.8 billion.
You need over 70% for herd immunity.

And NO, I NEVER said to "let it rip through a population".
That would ensure the vulnerable would get infected and die.
The only difference would be they would die sooner than with "flattening the curve".
What I am pushing is variolation, where you deliberately infect healthy volunteers, so you can reduce the deaths by a factor of 400.
When you deliberately infect, you know exactly who and when to quarantine the smallest number of people possible, for the shortest time.
So you’re Dr. Atlas now?

That would kill millions. But you know that. It’s what Putin wants
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,143
Reaction score
12,172
Points
1,560
The funnies, actually. But please, continue to tell us about the "hOrsE dEworMeR!" and the "truthy truth" about Ivermectin, straight from the billionaire pharma corporations.

LOL!
You mean the pharma company that makes it?
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
32,143
Reaction score
12,172
Points
1,560
Dude… take your fucking horse dewormer.

No one cares if you do.
 

Couchpotato

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
451
Reaction score
302
Points
183
Delta did not happen with the vaccine. It definitely happened without it.
So what. How would the vaccine have kept Delta or variants like it from happening? The answer is it wouldnt because of the vaccine's narrow focus it would amplify any virus mutation that helps it avoid the immunity provided by the vaccine. This vaccine is narrowly, like extremely narrowly focused. It targets one part of one protein that enables the virus to interact with human cells. That puts tremendous evolutionary pressure on that part of the protein to mutate and avoid the extremely narrow immunity this vaccine provides. You watch there will be a variant that arises that avoids the vaccine immunity and they will blame the unvax'd which will make zero scientific sense as the only pressure on the vaccine to mutate that way would come from a vax'd person but since we all know that all unvax'd are stupid and evil, nazi, facist Trump lovers we will blame them. Just like we are blaming the hospitalizations on that same group but say nothing about the fact that these people are also fat and otherwise unhealthy outside their infection with COVID.
 

Couchpotato

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
451
Reaction score
302
Points
183
We know India is no where herd immunity because they only have 33 million cases, out of a population of 7.8 billion.
You need over 70% for herd immunity.

And NO, I NEVER said to "let it rip through a population".
That would ensure the vulnerable would get infected and die.
The only difference would be they would die sooner than with "flattening the curve".
What I am pushing is variolation, where you deliberately infect healthy volunteers, so you can reduce the deaths by a factor of 400.
When you deliberately infect, you know exactly who and when to quarantine the smallest number of people possible, for the shortest time.
1.4 billion not 7.8 (which Im pretty sure is the population of the planet)
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,455
Reaction score
4,638
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for the “inaccuracies”

Plus or minus 20% is not a lot of error.
It is not the factor of 10 the headline is trying to imply.
That would be impossible unless deliberate.
And there is nothing to indicate India is deliberately fudging any numbers.
The only environmental factor that could explain it instead of Ivermectin, might be that India simply does not have the sugar problem we have.
Which manifests itself as an obesity vulnerability.
 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
32,896
Reaction score
12,329
Points
1,465
So what. How would the vaccine have kept Delta or variants like it from happening? The answer is it wouldnt because of the vaccine's narrow focus it would amplify any virus mutation that helps it avoid the immunity provided by the vaccine. This vaccine is narrowly, like extremely narrowly focused. It targets one part of one protein that enables the virus to interact with human cells. That puts tremendous evolutionary pressure on that part of the protein to mutate and avoid the extremely narrow immunity this vaccine provides. You watch there will be a variant that arises that avoids the vaccine immunity and they will blame the unvax'd which will make zero scientific sense as the only pressure on the vaccine to mutate that way would come from a vax'd person but since we all know that all unvax'd are stupid and evil, nazi, facist Trump lovers we will blame them. Just like we are blaming the hospitalizations on that same group but say nothing about the fact that these people are also fat and otherwise unhealthy outside their infection with COVID.
The vaccine results in fewer infections.

Ferwer infections means fewer replications.

Fewer replications means fewer mutations.

Fewer mutations means fewer adaptations.

Fewer adaptations means fewer variants.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,455
Reaction score
4,638
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
So you’re Dr. Atlas now?

That would kill millions. But you know that. It’s what Putin wants

Wrong.
We have been over this a dozen times, so why lie?
Fauci estimated 2.4 million would die for herd immunity, but he obviously was wrong.
There are small corrections, such as he did not know about asymptomatic, so he got lethality off by a factor of at least 2, and did not know or assume almost half the population was already inherently immume, but the big factor is age.
Turns out Fauci's death estimate was based mostly on deaths over 70, when those under 40 have 400 times less risk of death.
So as long as you only take healthy volunteers under 40, you reduce the death rate by a factor of 400, and get only 6k deaths as a result.
That is a tenth of what we already murdered.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,455
Reaction score
4,638
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The vaccine results in fewer infections.

Ferwer infections means fewer replications.

Fewer replications means fewer mutations.

Fewer mutations means fewer adaptations.

Fewer adaptations means fewer variants.

Fewer infections, but not by a significant factor. Maybe 2 or so.
Mutations take on the order of 10,000 years to be successful.
Variants do not come from real time mutations.
The mutations likely happened tens of thousands of years ago, and all we are seeing is natural selection, bringing them out more.
 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
32,896
Reaction score
12,329
Points
1,465
Fewer infections, but not by a significant factor. Maybe 2 or so.
Mutations take on the order of 10,000 years to be successful.
Variants do not come from real time mutations.
The mutations likely happened tens of thousands of years ago, and all we are seeing is natural selection, bringing them out more.
No. We aren’t. We see this in real time.

 

Couchpotato

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
451
Reaction score
302
Points
183
The vaccine results in fewer infections.

Ferwer infections means fewer replications.

Fewer replications means fewer mutations.

Fewer mutations means fewer adaptations.

Fewer adaptations means fewer variants.
That's not what the vaccine does. It reduces the severity of the illness. That's in the literature for the fucking vaccine on the CDC website for crying out loud. I mean I know the CDC and others conveniently omitted that information when they talked about the vaccine and let everyone believe hey were immune until they got caught but that's what it does.

But even if it did what you say and the entire population of the US were vax'd it wouldn't change a thing because the vast majority of the world isn't vax'd and wont be vax'd any time soon so the variants will continue to be produced under your theory and the narrow immunity granted by the vaccine will just amplify the ones that avoid the vaccine.

Look the vaccine that was produced was an amazing feat, and it should be given to those at risk (ie the elderly or immune compromised) but it wasnt ready for prime time and it wasnt ready to be deployed over large swaths of the population precisely for the reason's I've stated above.

Here's the thing that's most maddening about the whole thing. We know all this. And we have developed therapeutics that exponentially decrease the lethality of this virus. So what's the response from our "leaders" More of the same, boosters of the same narrow vaccine. WTF? It's no different than what happened in Afghanistan. The Admin fucked up but was so invested in the COA they just stayed the course regardless of the fact that it was a mistake and lots of people have and will continue to die because of it.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,455
Reaction score
4,638
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
No. We aren’t. We see this in real time.


"No, We aren't", is referring to what?
As I said, mutations can NOT be seen in real time, and take spans over 10,000 years.
What we see in real time is only natural selection, where a long existing rare mutation suddenly has an advantage and become the main strain.
Anyone who thinks successful mutations can happen in less than tens of thousands of years, does not know biology.
 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
32,896
Reaction score
12,329
Points
1,465
"No, We aren't", is referring to what?
As I said, mutations can NOT be seen in real time, and take spans over 10,000 years.
What we see in real time is only natural selection, where a long existing rare mutation suddenly has an advantage and become the main strain.
Anyone who thinks successful mutations can happen in less than tens of thousands of years, does not know biology.
Yes, I read that you said that mutations cannot be seen in real time.

That's wrong. You don't understand biology.

 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
32,896
Reaction score
12,329
Points
1,465
That's not what the vaccine does. It reduces the severity of the illness. That's in the literature for the fucking vaccine on the CDC website for crying out loud. I mean I know the CDC and others conveniently omitted that information when they talked about the vaccine and let everyone believe hey were immune until they got caught but that's what it does.

But even if it did what you say and the entire population of the US were vax'd it wouldn't change a thing because the vast majority of the world isn't vax'd and wont be vax'd any time soon so the variants will continue to be produced under your theory and the narrow immunity granted by the vaccine will just amplify the ones that avoid the vaccine.

Look the vaccine that was produced was an amazing feat, and it should be given to those at risk (ie the elderly or immune compromised) but it wasnt ready for prime time and it wasnt ready to be deployed over large swaths of the population precisely for the reason's I've stated above.

Here's the thing that's most maddening about the whole thing. We know all this. And we have developed therapeutics that exponentially decrease the lethality of this virus. So what's the response from our "leaders" More of the same, boosters of the same narrow vaccine. WTF? It's no different than what happened in Afghanistan. The Admin fucked up but was so invested in the COA they just stayed the course regardless of the fact that it was a mistake and lots of people have and will continue to die because of it.
The CDC says that the vaccine will prevent many people from getting infection.

"Studies show that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting COVID-19. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine will also help keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19."


You're right, it does reduce severity of the illness, but it also prevents most people from getting COVID in the first place. It's not an either/or situation.

Agree, on the point of the rest of the world being unvaccinated. And yes, it's a problem that we are grappling with. Some people want the US to fund vaccination programs in the entire world. Ambitious? Yes. But it would benefit us too.

Our therapeutics are okay. They're not as effective as the vaccine and they're WAY more expensive and more difficult to get to the patient on time. Relying on therapeutics is a good backup plan, but the vaccine is plan A.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,455
Reaction score
4,638
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Yes, I read that you said that mutations cannot be seen in real time.

That's wrong. You don't understand biology.


Wrong.
It is the person who wrote the article you linked, who does not know what a mutation is.
Virus frequently change, but that is because they just dump their RNA into a cell nucleus and it can combine with other genetic material in that nucleus.
But that is NOT a mutation, but more of a hybrid.
A mutation is a totally random damage, like from radiation or something.
When a couple get married and have a kid, the kid is not identical to either parent, but it is NOT a mutation.
This person is using a definition of mutation for ANY change, and that is wrong.
These virus variants are NOT real time mutations, at all, in any way.
That is easy to prove in that they are appearing on all continents at about the same time.
If they were a mutation, they would have a singular source and easily traced.
So most likely these are ancient mutations being made more common by natural selection, meaning what works best in humans.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top