virusrex comments

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

Also, the author contradicts them self in the same paragraph

What is the supposed contradiction? If someone says

"If the goal is to reduce lung cancer to stop smoking is the answer"

Would you think contradictory if this person also say

"Even though some people will still get lung cancer even if they never smoke..."?

Your problem is thinking that if something is not 100% effective then automatically becomes 0% effective, that makes absolutely no sense, there is such a thing as making every effort to stop something even if that effort is not guaranteed to stop completely that thing from happening.

University of Pittsburgh has skin in the game so I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of that establishment.

This source is not unique in the message being told, how about you bring ANY institution of the world that says vaccines have no role in limiting infections and the appearance of variants?

you can't find any? that is because this is the conclusion made from the best available science all around the world. Obviously you can't expect people to believe every single well respected institution of medicine or science in the whole world to be in some kind of conspiracy... do you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

No! My main point, which I have made many times, is that vaccines do not help reduce the spread. The other is that the help bring about variants through immune escape.

And both points are mistaken according to scientific evidence that you think stops existing as long as you don't recognize it, this is obviously not true.

Surprising how you seem to know what all the experts say and what the scientific consensus is,

Anybody can, easily they make a huge effort to publish the information, an easy way to prove even yourself know about it is that you never produce any institution that supports your point, meaning that you are unable to find any. This is how it is easy to see your opinion is purely personal and not backed up by the scientific community.

But what makes the large scale vaccination during a pandemic even worse is that the good antibodies take time to be produced (selection, maturation, further selection and maturation....).

Which still is irrelevant when comparing between the immune response from vaccinated and unvaccinated people because vaccinated people still have an advantage thanks to the immunity developed by the vaccines, which explains how variants do not appear in populations with high vaccination rates but the opposite, even if some people desperately want to believe the opposite.

the vaccine cultists will often try to convince you to avoid vitamin D

Dietary deficiencies are one of the many different preexisting conditions that have been well described even on the mass media, and no, what scientist and doctors warn about is the disinformation from antivaxxer groups that try to convince people that it can replace social distancing measures or vaccination when in reality that is not the case. Once again trying to distort the information to discredit safe and effective measures against the pandemic betrays an interest different from the public health.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

We know that it takes many years of testing to develope vaccines and even then, there have been many devastating results.

That is not a requirement that applies for new diseases, only for those for which there is a special difficulty or other vaccines are already available, none of those things applies for COVID.

As recently as 2017, a vaccine called Dengvaxia was deveoped for over 10yrs by pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur and that vaccine was supposed to combat dengue fever but it actually caused a worse form of the disease and children died.

That is a huge misrepresentation of the situation, Dengvaxia is still used and is indicated for the prevention of Dengue and its complicated forms that can be lethal, the problem is for people that have not had the disease even once, for which the vaccine acted as a first infection and elevated the risk of ADE, but never to the degree of a real first infection, for anybody that have had dengue at least once (most of adults in endemic regions have had it at least once or twice) the vaccine still works very nicely in preventing subsequent infections and ADE.

For me, I wont put my trust in, or be a "GUINEA PIG" for big Pharma and ill informed goverments,

If you consider vaccinating the population as a human experiment then you are a guinea pig, just one that choose to be on the high risk group instead of the protected group.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

No explanation for the increased transmissibility of the Delta has been put forward but transmission by vaccinated carriers shedding the viable variants selected by the inhibition of the original wild type but allowing subclinical infection with the variant would bypass the 'bottleneck' and neatly explain Delta's advantage.

The increased transmissibility of the Delta strain is well characterized by the changes in the spike protein that increase its affinity with the human receptor, there is nothing "not explained" about it, much less a need for any way to surpass any "bottleneck", unvaccinated people transmit the infection more than vaccinated people, so your explanation is not only unnecessary, it is also easy to prove mistaken.

Also the 'fading' of immune memory over such a short period of just a few months sounds more like Big Pharma obfuscation and Authoritative clutching onto 'fading' credibility than the possible biological fact of failed vaccination.

That is false, not only because there is no need for any obfuscation, but because it also applies to natural immunity (specially on asymptomatic cases) so it would be still present and important even if no vaccine was ever used. You also completely misunderstand the purpose of boosters, immunity against the virus is not narrow and it can recognize several domains of the protein, including some that have not changed in the variants, that explains why there is still neutralization of them with the immunity from vaccines, that has been proved scientifically can be even more broadly neutralizing than the natural infection. A booster is is not intended to "broaden" this immunity, just to increase it so the neutralization observed is more effective even against variants.

but the production of variants might then be exacerbated.

This is also demonstrabily false, and depends completely on not understanding the difference between selecting variants and producing those variants. Even with the current vaccines it has become obvious the immunity do not produce the apparition of more variants, not even select them, because (again) the immunity is more effective in neutralizing them than what is possible for people without any specific immunity against the virus.

Regarding "experts" and the asinine reference to "logic" in this circumstance, there are, so far, no "experts" in the area of COVID if the results, so far, are any example.

There are many experts on every kind of field that applies to the pandemic, from epidemiology to pathology, thinking that expertise on a specific case makes no sense, it would be like saying there is no medical specialty because every patient is unique, so nobody could be an expert at treating him.

Incidentally, something which I have not seen get much press is the much increased susceptibility and mortality in Vitamin D deficient individuals.

Then you should put more attention and read more, scientific publications have been very numerous, your problem may be expecting mass media to put every detail in your hand instead of going to the specialized media (and the primary sources) like people with a real interest do. For example this was discussed extensively a couple of months ago:

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

If anything, all your data shows is that Israeli hospitals are better.

Were not your only point that vaccines explains all the differences? I mean, being irrational is one thing, but being selectively irrational is much worse, if you use one standard to justify a mistaken personal opinion you have to apply that same standard also to what proves that opinion wrong, having two standards is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, people may begin to think you are trying to mislead completely on purpose.

I have yet to see anything convincing to support the above article's conclusion that "the best way to stop new variants is to stop their spread, and the answer to that is vaccination."

Which again is explained completely on your personal bias, where you irrationally reject the opinion of experts and instead replace it with your personal judgments of terribly lower quality. There are people that still insist in not having seen anything convincing about other things as well, from the shape of the planet to microbes being the cause of infection, not being convinced by valid evidence is not an argument that proves the evidence is not enough, it is an argument to prove the person is biased out of rationality.

Stopping reservoirs is fine, but thinking they are the more likely cause of variants of clinical importance is where you were wrong. Vaccinating people to delay or even stop the variants is a much more urgent matter.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

What? The Covid deaths are lower in Jordan than Israel!

What is the purpose of quoting something and then pretend it is not there, I clearly wrote "rates", In Israel the infections at this point are 10 times higher than Jordan (because of many different factors, not a single one like you like to misrepresent), the number of deaths is in comparison only between 2 to 3 times higher, this is the extremely important difference you keep trying to avoid recognizing, which makes terribly obvious an intention to mislead people.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

And now, cases have flared up again in Israel, but not in Jordan.

And strangely you keep forgetting to compare between hospitalization and death rates, which prove the opposite of what you are trying to say, even when it was how this comparison was defeated the last time you tried to use it. That of course without counting with the obviously multiple different factors that drive infection for the pandemic, pretending vaccination is the only difference between those countries is what make the amateur comparisons made by people that ignore completely epidemiology so easy mistaken.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

They appeared in unvaccinated populations, but they were created in vaccinated people.

Imaginations are not good arguments, they do more to prove irrational thinking from the people using them than what it is being said, If you have absolutely no proof of this (difficult to have since many of the variants appeared even before vaccines were used in the public) it becomes your word against the world scientific consensus, it is obvious who is more likely to be true.

Yes, much stronger, broader, and longer lived based on the observations of many experts treating patients. And according to this recent study:

I would trust the authors of that article that completely contradict you when they talk about how this study can't be overgeneralized because it compares symptomatic/hospitalized patients against people vaccinated many months ago with one single kind of vaccine. If they themselves say your conclusion from their article is not valid you have no argument to support what you personally believe.

And again, if you have to get all the risk from symptomatic/hospitalized disease to prevent those same risks that makes the natural immunity not better than vaccines but worse. Because the purpose is to avoid those risks in the first place.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

No mention of natural immunity again, which is better than the vaccines.

No it is not, because to get natural immunity people need to have much higher risks for their health than with the vaccines, having the problems you are trying to avoid is the opposite of better.

Just compare Sweden to Israel, both countries with large urban populations. The pandemic has essentially finished in the one that's not relying on vaccines

It would help if you tried to inform you better, even if comparing wildly different countries with very different strategies against the pandemic were valid (it is obviously not) Sweden has actually a higher rate of vaccination than Israel, which would mean you just proved yourself mistaken.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Posted in: Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants See in context

And that's why I made the personal choice not to get vaccinated.

It its quite unusual for people to accept doing on purpose something that will put others at a higher risk, but at least you recognize it now that you are acting purposefully against public health.

Mass vaccination during a pandemic was predicted by experts as causing vaccine resistant variants through immune escape. Seems the above provaccine article was simply written to counter all the experts blaming the vaccinations for the variants.

Those "experts" have repeatedly been proven wrong, specially because the variants have appeared in unvaccinated populations. It is hard to be so definitely wrong but since they choose to risk their reputation on baseless conjectures that contradicted the available evidence it is understandable they ended up that way.

The article is not the one countering those failed predictions, the evidence is.

I'll wait for their paper to come out before paying any attention to their claims, the above article does not provide anything convincing.

For people that reject evidence of anything they don't want to believe this is not surprising, since they can't be convinced by logic or data obviously nothing can ever be "convincing" for them.

But vaccinations will increase the chances of the mutated viruses to be transmitted over the unmutated ones

That is of course false, because the antibodies are still neutralizing for new variants, so the premise is mistaken, compared with unvaccinated people even incompletely neutralizing antibodies means lower chances for the virus to be propagated and transmitted. By definition unvaccinated people begin with 0% neutralizing antibodies against the variants.

The world has also witnessed the relationship between the number of vaccinations and the rise of mutants.

Yes, an inversely correlated relationship, with places with better vaccination efforts not producing any variants, that appear in widely spreading communities, usually because of lack of vaccination. This is one of the strongest arguments to prove this failed theory as false.

Animal reservoirs produce exactly the kind of variants we don't worry about, because those variants are selected to infect cells with very different receptors and to avoid different immune responses, thus lowering their importance for humans.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Posted in: Noda calls for vaccinating children aged 11 and under See in context

This is not a vaccine.

It is in every conceivable way, the experts that deal with vaccines professionals do say they are vaccines, obviously a nameless person on the internet saying without any basis that all the experts of the world are wrong is not really going to convince anyone.

It is not a vaccination; like the ones we all took growing up.

It is not a vaccination; like the ones we all took growing up.

It is in all the practical ways, it does the same as attenuated vaccines except that it takes out the replication step, thus making them safer. Foillow your own advice, include in your "research" things that you don't believe in.

there are some incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent scientists and doctors, who are being censored or ignored by media, and at this crucial time,

And they should be, because credentials do not make it fine to lie or deceive people with baseless explanations or even worse, explanations that can be easily demonstrated false with data, even if the people trying to convince others run away from that evidence.

False, misleading information brings absolutely no benefit to any discussion, people insisting on bringing those lies can validly be silenced without anything of value being lost. On the contrary, without them the scientific discussion actually becomes better.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Posted in: Japan may start administering 3rd COVID vaccine shots by year-end See in context

The resident says if we need boosters fine. The problem with boosters is that they become less and less effective as you take them.

Any source to actually prove this or is it just a product of your imagination? I mean, you know that there are vaccines already being used that need a booster months or even years after the priming doses and they can bring even life long protection.

That means when the variant moves far enough away from the original strain, lets call it variant death, your immune system wont be up for the fight and youll most likely die. So there's that...

This makes absolutely no sense, your immune system is never worse than what it would be without vaccination, if your imaginary scenario would be real that would make the vaccines much more necessary because variants would kill unvaccinated people. In reality what you imagine is not happening.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Posted in: U.S. panel backs COVID-19 boosters only for elderly, high-risk See in context

I knew this was going to happen, at least the ethical ones have now come to grips what this is really abll about.

There is nothing that is being done "now", this is the same that has been done from the beginning. Seeing the evidence and making recommendations about it. The problem is not on the side of the experts, but on the side of the people that have double standards and only accepts the recommendations when they are on line with their personal beliefs and reject them when they don't, even if both are solidly based on scientific evidence.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan may start administering 3rd COVID vaccine shots by year-end See in context

Interesting. The FDA findings are exactly the science I've been warning about for a year; failing efficacy and adverse events. And as always, citations.

If you need to openly lie and misrepresent the opinion of experts as the opposite of what they have actually concluded it becomes very clear that your interest is not public health but to deceive people into making the same mistake you do.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

Posted in: U.S. panel backs COVID-19 boosters only for elderly, high-risk See in context

This should have been the guidance all along for all the vaccines because they’re so “leaky.”

The experts' opinion is the opposite and their points are well supported by data. Your "option" is to let a lot of people die unnecessarily by irrational opposition to safe and effective vaccines. "Leaky" vaccines work wonderfully to stop outbreaks for many other diseases, your problem is thinking that just because vaccinated people get little to no symptoms they were never infected, you would be surprised to find out how many vaccinated people actually get infected around an outbreak of measles for example.

High level scientists are starting to jump ship.

No such thing, the scientist are doing exactly the same thing from the beginning, following the scientific evidence. Thinking they are "changing teams" because you find easier to accept the evidence now, and not before, is deeply irrational and typical of an anti-scientific way of thinking.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Posted in: Co-inventor of mRNA shots sets sights on pan-coronavirus vaccine See in context

Robert Malone is the major inventor of the core technology

No, it is not, as proved by the references, you being unable to accept it do not make it false. It only makes obvious you prefer believing things that can be proved false.

They changed the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA, but the core technology is the same.

If that is the excuse the same applies to Malone, he just changed the specific nucleotide being introduced, but the core technology of nucleic acid transfection is still the same.

He is in the same boat as the other hundreds of people whose work made the vaccine possible, expecting all and every of those hundreds to be mentioned is not logical.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: France suspends 3,000 unvaccinated health workers See in context

we arent talking about rappers or conspiracy theory, but people who work in the field willing to lose their job over it. Its a valid question

And it has a very obvious answer, why do you think giving antibiotics for viral infections is so common? or that about a million of injuries due to medical mistake in the US happen every year?

It is simple, a degree do not guarantee people will be prepared to do their jobs, and a small minority will be in the wrong everywhere you search, for some is being too gullible about conspiracy theories, for others rational thinking is not their best characteristic, other may have other interests in mind above the health of their patients, for some it may be as simple as thinking too much about themselves refusing to do what they are told. They don't have the scientific evidence on their side, by definition their position is irrational.

who has access to actual patients and sees what happens to individuals who are injected?

Thanks to medical science anybody with access to that information. Why thinking a nurse that have seen 100 patients is more likely to be correct than a specialist that have seen the full data of 100,000?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Posted in: Japan's top COVID-19 adviser wary of easing restrictions See in context

as will certain safe and effective early treatments, which Omi and Tamura continue to ignore...

The reason is that they are not particularly safe and are completely ineffective, so it is perfectly fine for them to ignore them. Believing otherwise is not enough of an argument to prove the scientific consensus about it false.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Posted in: Co-inventor of mRNA shots sets sights on pan-coronavirus vaccine See in context

But the major inventor of the core technology is Robert Malone

No he is not, that has been debunked a long time ago. Chaning the variety of nucleic acid on a well characterized technique do not make him the inventor of the technology.

The reason he is not mentioned is the same as any of the hundreds other people that contributed. They have nothing to do with developing pan-coronavirus vaccines.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: FDA strikes neutral tone ahead of vaccine booster meeting See in context

What? Definitely not. I made it very clear for quite a while that vaccines actually have very little effect on the spread.

No you did not, you only made it clear that you believe it so, and that this belief is not based on anything but your personal opinion. The expert's opinion is the opposite, and they have scientiic data to prove it. Specially when they do analysis that do include epidemiological analysis instead of just assuming things without proving them as you keep doing.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: FDA strikes neutral tone ahead of vaccine booster meeting See in context

When they started administering boosters in Israel, the cases did go down for a few days, but then shot right back up. Are they all unboosted?

Do you think vaccines are the only factor that affect how the pandemic spreads? there is a reason why epidemiological analysis is necessary to actually understand this, an unvalid asumption (that every other factor remained the same except for boosters, or that the cases were in the people that recieved them) are terribly obvious mistakes that make people that are not experts reach completely wrong conclusions.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Posted in: Pope questions vaccine skeptics, including cardinals See in context

He has the responsibility to say something he is not qualified to say? OK...

He has the responsibility to say that those that are quialified have reached a conclusion. It is not so hard to understand.

An act of love should never be forced.

And he is not saying it should, just that for members of his religion it is a desirable thing to do for which everybody should aim. It may be surprising for those that only put importance on their own desires, but there are actually people that like to do things for others, just because is the right, decent thing to do.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Pope questions vaccine skeptics, including cardinals See in context

Obviously a religious figure is not the person to ask about scientific matters, they are out of his field of expertise; but he still has a responsibility to clearly say to the believers that the science is clear and they should be vaccinated if they can. This may not convince those that are irrationally opposed to vaccines because of personal reasons, but at least it will take the religion excuse out of the way, now antivaxxers can't try to convince Catholics saying the vaccine is against their religion.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Co-inventor of mRNA shots sets sights on pan-coronavirus vaccine See in context

A lot of research is being done about vaccines (not only mRNA ones) that can neutralize different coronaviruses, in animals it has been shown that making vaccines with recombinant spike proteins incorporating parts of the protein from different viruses can protect against infection not only from those viruses but even others whose proteins were not included in the vaccine.

Making such vaccines with "pre-pandemic" coronaviruses can help not only controlling pandemics that appear, but even prevent news that are on the way of doing the same as SARS-CoV-2.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: Virus lockdown extended for Australia's capital by 4 weeks See in context

It isn't false; the study I referenced says it very clearly. I provided the reference and quote from the paper. I know you saw it before it was deleted since you quoted a different part of the same post...

Quote from the reference then, because they actually said something completely different. Actually they explicitly recognized their collection is biased toward the most symptomatic patients of the natural infection, and that for comparison they only used one single type of vaccine on patients inouclated many months before.

So if the authors themselves are saying your over-generalization is false I would tend to believe them and not you.

I stated many times, and many people here agree, that the actual infection number in Japan is much higher than the reported infection rate. So we are clearly closer to herd immunity than many people believe.

And you have been wrong with that since more than one year ago, repeating something that is false do not make it less false. You dont know how much infections actually happen in Japan, nor how close is the country to herd immunity, the experts say vaccination is extremely necessary, once again they are a much more reliable source, at least they have not failed predicting endlessly for more than one year that the pandemic is close to finish for Japan as you have done.

But I and many experts believe that the young and healthy might be better off not getting the vaccine. 

But the experts that actually have the evidence contradict you and the terrible sources you have presented, none of which can even support their views on evidence, much less discuss the evidence that proves your belief is wrong.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are constructed on the logic that the central government is hiding something. These theories spread as people grow distrustful of government and politics, whose handling of the coronavirus pandemic continues to be inept. See in context

"The" scientists?

Yes, the scientists, it is terribly easy to go around and read what every scientific institution is saying about some topic, most of the time you will find the same thing being repeated, sometimes every single one will say the same thing.

No, it is not believable that every scientists and doctor in the world is lying for money, this kind of belief may be something a person that is only interested in money may believe, but for the vast majority of the population of the world this is nonsense. It is simply impossible to believe that everybody is on life-saving jobs just for the money and that they can lie (and put in risk even their own families and friends) because some company have magically the trillions necessary to pay them all (specially because this fortune is spent to make billions).

If your only references are people with terrible morals, that have been found to lie and deceive repeatedly, manipulate studies, make unethical human trials, and harrass people that expose their lies instead of correcting them it becomes obvious that you have no actual source to prove your point and that is why you have to use the bottom of the barrel.

As always, if you can't find even one actual institution to support your beliefs it is safer to consider them mistaken.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Posted in: Conspiracy theories are constructed on the logic that the central government is hiding something. These theories spread as people grow distrustful of government and politics, whose handling of the coronavirus pandemic continues to be inept. See in context

Funny how conspiracy theories always turn out to be facts in the end.

That is impossible because there are many conspiracy theories that contradict each other, if one would turn to be true that would man other are false. That all of them end up being wrong is of course completely possible, and even likely.

Don't be naive. Power hungry people have been conspiring behind the scenes to grab territory, topple leaders, take over corporations, control populaces, etc. throughout history. Why not now?

That is the thing, using conspiracies as the never ending excuse to explain why things are like you believe they are and not how they can be demonstrated means believing it happens always, not just now.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is used to write off criticism as irrelevant by 'experts' who think they know better when really they haven't even checked.

That is false, it is a perfectly valid term to describe the situation where the whole point of one person is to believe things are like he wants to convince others without any evidence of it. If there is any evidence of something happening it is no longer a conspiracy theory.

Does anyone actually believe that central governments are open and honest?

Why would anybody need to? if a belief requires people outside of it to be in the conspiracy then you can still distrust the goverment and the conspiracy still unbelievable.

Is the goverment saying the opposite from the scientists? then the scientists are more likely to be right, are both groups saying the same thing? then them both are more likely to be correct than wrong, even if you don't trust the govermnet.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Posted in: Virus lockdown extended for Australia's capital by 4 weeks See in context

As mentioned above and many times elsewhere, vaccinate the vulnerable and whoever wants to, and allow the use of safe and effective early treatments. Australia's lockdowns don't solve anything, they just delay the problems and make them worse.

And as previously demonstrated with references of the scientific community reaction to the Great Barrington declaration this is not a scientifc approach, it is not justified and endangers not only the vulnerable population but everybody by promoting the appearance of variants that can make all kind of immunity less effective.

Saying that lockdowns are the only alternative from letting the disease run wild is a false dichotomy, in reality the best approach is social distancing measures as appropiate and vaccination of the whole population to slow down or even stop transmission.

Safe and effective early treatments are already being used worldwide, the only ones that are not used are those that have not demonstrated to be useful, including HCQ and ivermectin, and as long as there is no evidence to contradict this they should not be used. That is the difference between science and faith, in science you need first the evidence to prove something before asking everybody to do it. And no, the excuse that all the well recongized medical and scientific institutions of the world are all in some hidden conspiracy to hide treatments from their own friends and family is still impossible to believe for anybody that has common sense.

 But if someone has already recovered from an infection, their immunity against the Delta variant is 30x greater than that provided by the vaccine.

That is still false, because asymptomatic infection can produce much lower levels of protection and not all vaccines produce the same immune reaction, falsely generalizing both things (natural immunity as if everybody got the response that hospitalized patients do, and vaccine derived immunity as if everybody had the same protection as the one from one single vaccine 6 months after being used) is a too obvious attempt to mislead people.

And I do believe that for young healthy people the risk of getting infected and having serious adverse effects or dying is lower than that from the vaccine

Which is still irrelevant, not only because many of your beliefs have been demosntrated as mistaken (as when you predicted Japan was entering herd immunity from the summer of last year) but because experts of the world can demonstrate with scientific data exactly the opposite of what you believe.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: COVID-19 deaths of people aged under 60 soar in Japan due to Delta variant See in context

latest age related survival rates from Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis.

That includes the super-scary Delta variant. The IFR is not drastically different from the ordinary flu.

Unfortunately the good name that Ioannidis had before the pandemic has been spoiled by the many mistakes and lapses of judgment that were inconceivable for his old standards, it has become clear that he is trying to push something even if he has not the data to support his point, maybe because of the funding he keeps receiving from people that benefit economically directly from minimizing the pandemic.

If you compare the infection rates of the last winter season it becomes clear why COVID can't be considered equivalent to influenza.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Posted in: Virus lockdown extended for Australia's capital by 4 weeks See in context

A number of experts have for some time observed that natural immunity was superior, with confirmed reinfections being extremely rare.

Again, that do not make natural immunity superior, specially if you are going to compare infected symptomatic patients against one single variety of vaccine. This is because you are still getting the risks of the infection (and an infection that is at least symptomatic, more likely hospitalized as they authors recognize as a limitation of their comparison). Having an arm amputated is not a "superior" measure against losing that arm, because it produces precisely what you are trying to avoid.

So no, as totally expected what nameless people on the internet say is still a much worse solution than what the experts of the field in all countries of the world say it should be done.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.