What people? doctors and nurses in charge of vulnerable patients and that have constant close contact with other people? yes.
People in relative isolation that for whatever reason were in contact with someone that later was identified as positive? no.
The purpose of a test is to define if a person suspicious to be infected has the virus at that moment (and need to be isolated and in vigilance for symptoms/complications), or if it can still be treated only as suspicious until it can be safely considered as not infected (for example when two weeks have passed since the last time he could have been infected).
People that are regularly at risk definitely benefit from knowing if they are positive or just may be positive. Then they can take preventive actions soon and also their own contacts can be traced and checked. People that are in no special situation (testing at random for example) will only know that they are not likely to be spreading the virus at that moment or the recent past. Not much point in them being regularly tested.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
What ? Was it ? When ? In December last year ? It isn't anymore ?
When the number of infected, sick and deaths are withing manageable levels and without progressive increase. That should be obvious.
Not too many people die in Japan. And this is a good data. Japan is managing the virus just right deaths and hospitals. And unless there are indicators that this is no longer true, there is no need for panic.
A progressive increase of the number of detected cases, an increase of the percentage of positives results from the tested people, a failure to get epidemiological links of infections for the mayority of the detected cases, all these are indicators that the control is not adequate.
There is never a reason to panic, but definitely there are reasons to step up the measures for control because this becomes more an more difficult the more the indicators become worse. Your problem is thinking that there are only two things to do, panic or ignore the problem, this is false.
What ? LOL. Right. Bravo N.Zealand. Now the only thing left is how to lock the country down in a way that it doesn't backfire into a complete chaos.
Because NZ is in complete chaos? or that is also just another non argument from you?
No, there is no such thing as "the only thing left" there are many different things to try, the one that you are suggesting (doing nothing) is not working. Why do you ask questions if you are going to ignore the answers? did that sound like there is only one more thing to do?
If you first say something is impossible, and in the next reply you even make a list of that exact thing happening, that means that yes, you proved yourself wrong.
You abandoning your arguments every time they are proved false also makes easier to think that.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Sweden data . expert Andress Tegnell. Everything else is rather one dimensional testicle numbing based eaither on bad data, bad data interpretation or interests.
So one single country doing something extremely different from what was done here on a very different degree somehow proves that this completely different control attempt was useless? even when by every single metric the results were different from the beginning?
Nope, that "data" just proves that you don't understand what controls means and how it can be done, it neither disproved any of the experts that think it is perfectly possible to do it, as it was here.
Countries think have controlled the virus, but fine I will comment.
No, countries have controlled the disease, controlling does not mean eradicate it from the planet or even their country, it means keeping the spreading to a certain degree that is manageable.
N.Zealand . Well probably Tottori too has control over the virus
Which still proves you wrong, thanks for doing it yourself.
Good to see you abandoned your pretenses of being rational and accepted you simply are "defending" a mistaken point for whatever reasons.
Oh like what ? what is it we can do now ? please tell us what you think. So far you only comment on what other people think on specific sentences around typing mistakes. Tell us virusrex what should we do.
The experts all over the world have already put forward literally dozens and dozens of different strategies that work, on the other hand a nameless person on the internet says it is impossible, even when it has already been done. It is impossible to detail exactly what to do without the information that the government has, but it is very obvious that in general the population has to be tested more, educated more, more detailed and strong measures to support social distancing at all levels.
One thing that for sure has to stop is thinking you can worry about it once thousands of deaths begin to happen, like you do.
Neither should you !
And I don't, because I have proved you wrong several times, and you have only proved yourself wrong here.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
No! It means it was never controllable. Life is complicated. This will blow your mind, listen, boys like to kiss girls on the mouth and sometime they use their tongues.
Show your data and analysis, the experts' opinion clearly contradict yours and they do have the valid authority and data to prove their point.
Countries have controlled the spreading, Japan has not special condition that makes it impossible, so you are demonstrably wrong.
I am not saying let's be complacent and pretend everything is OK. I am just saying let's worry ( think this is your point ) equally about other aspects of life and cut down on decor like "deaths and long lasting consequences".
So just another "all lives matter"?
Sorry but no, there must be priorities and some things have to be treated with more urgency than others, the situation right now is not terrible, but it is going that way, and following your horrible advice would mean that we should only worry about thousands over thousands of deaths after we get to the point where we cannot do anything about it; that is absolutely negative. We know deaths and long lasting consequences happen with this disease, a lot of effort has been done so it did not happen here and it has been relatively successful until now, but seeing clear signs of things going out of control is precisely the time where something can be done and the worse case scenario can be prevented.
Completely agree! I am glad you saying this.
Nevertheless you keep repeating the same mistaken opinion without even trying to defend it. Being glad about it while still being mistaken is not something you should be contempt with.
8 ( +10 / -2 )
I think that is why higher percentage of positive results from the total of tests. They got infected as part of a scheme to make quick 10 man and testing.
What if someone else does not think the same? is that enough to make your reason false?
Even if that was a real reason, based on anything else but your personal subjective consideration, that does not negate the main point which is that the disease is out of control, it would only give one extra reason why the disease fell out ot control.
Not testing enough (true for japan) also means the disease is not being controlled. We should have seen more deaths and long lasting disabilities by now don't you think ?
No, that is false, not testing enough only means we would not know if the diseases is controlled or not, or that lack of control is easier to appear before it is detected, like we are experiencing now. If other measures are done correctly it is perfectly possible that the disease is controlled even if we are not able to confirm it because of lack of testing.
In this case it is very obvious that lack of testing would be one of the things that contributes to this apparently increasing rate of spreading, but it is not the only thing that is being done about it.
His commentary and your commentary quality wise aren't that different
Because of your personal opinion based on no data that actually support the main point of mine? or because you misunderstood completely what is the relationship between testing and control of a disease?
An opinion that can be demonstrated as wrong is very different from an opinion with a main point that you could not understand. Even if for you they look the same.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
So? And they’ll get higher. And all those people will get better. People are mistaking infections with deaths
There is no need to make that mistake to be worried, the point is that an increasing number of cases (and a higher percentage of positive results from the total of tests, and the proportion of cases without a clear epidemiological link, etc.) means that the disease is not being controlled, and if nothing is done about it the cases will continue to increase until it reaches the vulnerable population or swamp the health services and then a very important number of deaths and long lasting disabilities that could have been prevented will happen.
Your commentary is like saying that a fire alarm is nothing to worry about because it is not like it is loud enough to make you deaf permanently.
3 ( +11 / -8 )
Damn, when the number was a little lower yesterday I was hopeful people were being more careful, but now this big number!
The number of cases being reported today is a reflection of the situation around two weeks before, when the number of detected cases per day were still below 50. You will have to wait two weeks from today to see if this number makes people more careful or not, even if everybody stopped completely going out from this moment you would still see lots of cases being detected in the following days.
13 ( +16 / -3 )
"There is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an immunity passport or risk-free certificate," it said in April.
Now, it is necessary to be perfectly clear about this, it does not mean that antibodies are useless, or that you can get the infection repeatedly as some people misunderstood. It means we still don't know precisely what levels of antibodies are protective, how long the antibodies are maintained after infection or if a person can shed viruses (and transmit the infection) even if protected by his antibodies.
Maybe everything is fine, people are protected for life and levels of antibody in the blood can prove they are immune, but we still don't have the data to prove it, so the "immunity passports" are not based on science and it is still possible that they don't work, causing outbreaks because someone thought to be protected was not. Proper evidence will come in time.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
never said I was perfect either, or that I know everything.
Your opinion is contrary to what every professional organization that deal with human health recommend, but even knowing that you insist in that you must be right and everybody else must be wrong. That is not so much different from saying you know everything, at least it means that you consider you know more than everybody else in the world.
I'd like to think that you're right in assuming covid-19 is unlike other sicknesses and compatible with different cocktails of vaccines. why don't you give it a try and tell us how you get on.
How much value do you think a single anecdotal uncontrolled experience would have against the detailed and well controlled data of literally millions of cases around the whole world? Because that is what is being considered and studied right now by the experts, those that make the official recommendations.
Also why do you worry so much about "cocktails" of vaccines? a tiny cut while playing on the floor, or taking a toy from the rug to their mouth introduce much more antigens (both in quantity and in variety) to an infant's blood stream than all the vaccines he will receive in his life? do you think then that babies should be kept in an sterile bubble until the pandemic is over? I mean, since the antigens are unknown and uncontrolled every time these small accidents happens the "unknown risks" for the infant are thousands time more than vaccinating
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What you consider, "some imaginary risks no one can negate" is a perfect example of your issue, lack of humility.
You have provided absolutely no detail about those risks you consider so important, risks of what? how much they increase? how they are compared with normal vaccination? are they more than the risks for getting a preventable infection? how did you calculate this?
Sorry if you consider lack of humility to say that imaginary things are imaginary, what guides completely your worries is not concrete at all, in any sense, just something that you think it may exist, but every professional organization that deals with health care in the world say should be disregarded as not important enough to delay vaccinations. It is obvious who has the evidence to support that recommendation, and it is not you.
Your here still trying to figure everything out.
Is that so bad? do you prefer a comfortable lie instead of the truth? I have no need to figure everything out, people dedicate their whole lives to do it based on scientific data and they do all the hard work I only have to read what they recommend and maybe, if I have the interest, see the data they used to reach that conclusion. I know is not as easy as deciding by yourself what has to be true ignoring reality but it is definitely more productive.
You think you're capable of knowing everything.
Of course not, but I can know when something is wrong when compared with what the experts recommend, it is not that hard.
Don't worry, it'll be okay thats just some imaginary risk that no one can negate. Ha,ha
Again, nobody can make you accept the reality, you can live in denial if you want, but if it is so easy to prove your opinion is mistaken and based on nothing concrete there is no point if trying to defend it on the first place, specially if your only defense is that you want to believe it so.
Get some humility because that attitude is a danger to us all.
Never as dangerous as considering your own uninformed, proved mistaken opinion as if it were above the opinion of the world experts, someone that thinks that cant really talk about humility anymore. I have based nothing on what I personally recommend, everything is according to organizations like the WHO, CDC, etc.
You on the other hand based absolutely everything on what you personally believe, what do you think that means?
With this virus there are a lot of unknowables. I wouldn't shrug other people's insights off so carelessly.
well, you did exactly the same the moment I changed the word "vaccinations" to "medications", you don't know what effect the infection with covid-19 could have on people taking any medication right? but still you considered wrong to deny it. How com you can shrug that insight so instantaneously?
Now knowing if there is a risk is a terribly bad reason for ignoring risks that you know there are there, like preventable diseases that are avoided thanks to vaccination. That can be done for absolutely everything, for example How do you know that covid-19 infection would make the immune system incapable of fighting the diseases prevented by the vaccines? can you prove this possibility does not exist? you should promote vaccination then, right?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The local health department has declared the risks.
Which I am telling you is not normal and only justified in terrible situations, you are either in a horribly unprepared place or under authorities that disregard the professional advice of higher authorities, neither of those things are good. Also you could just be misinterpreting what your local health department has said and actually they are openly recommending people to get their vaccines on time, who knows? all that we have is what you say they have declared
your diabetes guy would probably die whereas an unvaccinated person would have no demonstratable damage nor factual proof of negligence because vaccines are known to be ineffective sometimes.
How do you know that? lots of people live with untreated diabetes for decades,
also, diabetes treatment are known to be ineffective sometimes, so since they are not 100% effective for you that means there is no proof of negligence either.
Or, you are just using double standards, one only for your own opinion, just so you can avoid being obviously mistaken, and another much more rational for every other thing apart from vaccines because that makes much more sense.
You think it is a bad analogy because it completely demonstrate how illogical you are.
are not 100% effective, nor 100% safe,
nobody knows what complications they have together with COVID infection
you cannot negate that the possibility of infection increase the risk of using them.
If the person do not complicate immediately you could not "demonstrate" damage
So, according to you the, not negligent option is to delay them until the pandemic is over, right?
I mean, if you change "medications" for "vaccinations" that is what you have been writing.
Is it clear now why it makes no sense, neither for medications nor for vaccinations, why? because delaying them brings more risk than using them during the pandemic as much as usual. The real non-negligent decision is to do whatever is less risky for the patients, which normally means keep vaccinating normally.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
you seem to imply that anyone who disagree with you is negligent in some way.
No, what I am saying is that you assuming that the only responsible thing to do with vaccinations is to delay them is a mistake, specially when you try to justify it with some obscure, badly define "risk" that is every present and makes vaccines automatically more risky, without proving it in any way.
Could you please stick your neck out and produce a factual opinion regarding vaccinations in the presence of covid-19.
You give way too much importance to personal opinions, specially when opposite to all the professional organizations that work to preserve human health.
What do you Imagine I could see that could contradict the mountains of scientific evidence that organizations like the CDC or the WHO have and that makes them recommend to keep immunizations as close as possible as usual, none of those organization share your worries nor they give special warnings about vaccinating due to covid-19.
If your local health services are overrun by infected people or were terribly unprepared for the pandemic and cannot see patients without putting them at risk you are in a terribly bad situation, but that is NOT normal and of course not the rule. In most cities of the world health services are perfectly capable of doing it, even for example in USA where cases are rampant. And in them vaccination (and medication for other diseases) is to be kept as much as possible the same as before, even if nothing is ever 100% effective.
All the if and or but of your routine arguments, despite lack of vaccine effectiveness, don't apply as well now.
Yes they do, the same as they apply for diabetes medication. You being in denial about how risk is to be managed in health care does not make those arguments less true, you have not been able to contradict even one of them, which would make any honest person that wants to know the truth consider if he may be in the wrong. That apparently does not apply to you, that insist in the same falsified argument just because you want to believe it.
With all due respect, and despite your persuasiveness, I, for now, will remain more skeptical of vaccines than you.
Which you are free to do, unfortunately against logic and reasons, and mountains of evidence. Something that seems not to matter to you, nor would to my bad doctor example, that stops medication necessary to life and health just because some imaginary risks nobody can negate.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I understand that vaccines are important. However, in the presence of covid-19 or any other pandemic, it would be negligent to vaccinate out of context. It would not be negligent to not vaccinate.
No that is false.
covid-19 or any other pandemic increase the risk of vaccination only marginally, specially now that we got literally millions of cases without any relationship with vaccines being reported. Which means that any possible complication specific for the infections is so rare that it can be ignored (specially when even the possibility of the child being infected is also close to non-existent)
On the other hand not vaccinating has well described, frequently appearing risks, you thinking those risks are not important is irrelevant because that is just an uninformed opinion not based on any scientific information, so it is perfectly logical that a doctor that simply refuses to vaccinate because there is a pandemic in the world (even if the infant has no real possibility of being infected) can and should be investigated for negligence.
What would you say if a doctor refuses to give a patient his diabetes medicines because he thinks that they could have unknown interactions with the covid infection? even if there is no data to indicate it and not being medicated has real risks for the patient (even if it is not 100% sure that he will die or complicate, only very very likely)
In this discussion you are that doctor, giving absolute importance to something that you want to imagine as important and thinking that very real risks can be ignored arbitrarily just because.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The fact remains that vaccines are not 100% effective, or preventive. The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, parents are highly unlikely to be considered negligent if their children miss a dose.
Nothing is 100% effective nor preventive in medicine, not a single thing. The reason why missing a dose is not likely to be considered negligent has nothing to do with that. It is all due to most medical interventions having redundancies built in, so it will not depend on being done perfectly. If the kid gets the preventable disease this small failure can still have consequences tho, and the situation can require an investigation by social services to see if the reason for missing that dose was valid or not.
A surgery for apendicitis is neither 100% safe and effective, but a parent that let a child die because he does not "believe" in surgeries can still be accused of manslaughter.
The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, doctors are unlikely to be considered negligent for not administering, but they are protected if there are complications after administering.
No, that is a false idea born from ignorance. Doctors are protected when they do things according to their best knowledge, since vaccines are proven a safe and effective intervention it is more frequent that a doctor is accused of negligence for refusing to do something without a valid reason (because there are very few of these valid reasons) not being 100% effective has nothing to do with it because, again, nothing in medicine is 100% effective. The answers seem black and white for your because you don't understand the justifications of why things are done and think vaccines are some special case compared with everything else a doctor does, they are not.
A doctor that applies a vaccine that is contraindicated and that does not have a valid reason is also liable to be accused of negligence, for example if the child is known to be allergic to a component of the vaccine. If what you imagined were true the doctor would be completely protected against this, but in reality he can lose his licence or even end up in jail for criminal negligence.
At the end, it is the same thing, doctors are protected against negligence by not doing negligent things, which means doing the best thing according to their knowledge. With respect to vaccines this usually means applying it, there is nothing wrong with that.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
therefore it would be impossible to, without a doubt, prove a vaccine would have prevented an ailment thus assigning negligence.
Proving that something would have not happened without a doubt is not a requirement for negligence, it is only necessary to prove a unjustified decision. After all if a doctor makes a negligent mistake and kills a patient in a surgery it is also impossible to prove, without a doubt, that the patient would have survived if the doctor had not made that mistake.
Not vaccinating for an invalid reason, followed by the infant getting sick and dying from the preventable disease is still an example of negligence, because it can be proved that something that reduced the risk of this event was not done without a proper justification. Depending on the case a doctor can still be accused even if nothing bad happened, just because his decision increased the risk of the patient unnecessarily.
Obviously black and white cases are extremely rare, the personal experience of a doctor in a very specific situation can mean that different doctors would have decided different things and neither would be in the wrong, the important thing here is that in general vaccinations can continue as usual because it means less risk for the infants, parents should have been informed about this, as well as any extra precautions they could take if they wanted, but they were not, which means that many ended up delaying unnecessarily the vaccinations.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
CDC was warning that there would be an increase in deaths due to not vaccinating (even during the pandemic lock down) but there was a drop in infant deaths. An increase in deaths did not occur but a decrease...specifically SIDS.
Both things are false.
One the CDC warns about the possibility of an increase in deaths, after all an outbreak is not something that has to happen with lower vaccination levels, just something that is more likely to happen.
The decrease in deaths is in general, the data makes absolutely no distinction about the causes of those preventable deaths, and SIDS is definitely not the exclusive cause, so every single prevented case could be due to other causes and you would still see the same numbers. You cannot attribute to SIDS any of those prevented deaths without specific data that is not in your source.
Now there is a relationship with a significant drop in SIDS deaths during the lock down.
Again, your data do not show any SIDS reduction, only in general deaths. Your source specifically says so "We have no specific data on the trend in SIDS deaths during the pandemic" why insist in something that can be proven to be a lie?
The CDC would have classified those drop in infant deaths due to respiratory diseases and NOT SIDS yet it was a specific drop in SIDS.
There is no classification in the data that you presented, the reduction is in deaths in general, how do you know it was not because of respiratory diseases? you need to present that specific data to be able to say it, which you have not.
There is a significant relationship with vaccinations and SIDS.
Again, that would require a time machine, because the drop in deaths happened one month before of the drop of vaccinations. Unless you have a rational way in which children stop dying a whole month before not being vaccinated you can safely dismiss this relationship as imaginary. Better to search for something that happened at least at the same time as the drop in expected deaths, or before.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
To somewhat answer your question, because there are so many unknowns about covid 19, its an unknowable whether mixing the virus with pharmaceuticals would be recommended and administered if a medical professional where to take responsibility for the informed decision of inoculating a baby, infant, or child.
That possibility exist for every single condition you can think about, not only from infections but from simple genetic disposition. There is never a situation when you can categorically say that this risk of complication or death does not exist. The thing is that not vaccinating is also one decision that brings risk of complication and death, so both recommending to do it and recommending not to do it means taking responsibility.
A medical professional have to consider the very real, frequent possibility of a preventable disease against a theoretical, infrequent and completely unreported supposed complication, something that has not been described even with millions of cases in the world. Ethically the consideration is very clear in a normal situation. Failing to recommend vaccination when it should be done would put the doctor in a much worse position than a totally unexpected complication from covid-19, because it choose to downplay is a risk that is well known against a risk that nobody knows if it even exist.
Records and irrational fears are of course very different situations that have to be dealt in a case by case way, but that does not mean that the general recommendation cannot simply be that vaccinations should be done as usual whenever its possible.
There is no such a thing as "blanket vaccination" because that would imply that a doctor do not need to be involved. In reality the doctor have to consider every patient and decide where the risk is less. Thinking that a normal vaccination schedule for a normal infant is somehow "dangerous" is an exaggeration, after all a small cut while the infant is playing in the floor means he get exposed to orders of magnitude more antigens (both in quantity and diversity) than the whole vaccination schedule.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
ata from the CDC showed 30% fewer deaths due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS (COMPARED TO 2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019) during the exact same time period of the nationwide lock down.
The data you link say something completely different. The only information present is from infant mortality in general, no data specific to SIDS is presented, so your assumption is based only in your imagination.
It is also completely clear that the decrease in infant mortality abruptly began in the week 9 (end of February) while the drop in vaccination rates began on week 13 (end of March) so it is not "exact same time period" at all, why lie about it if you are going to provide a source where anybody can see it is false? Do you actually believe that not vaccinating a child would save his life one month before the vaccination? you are going to have a really hard time proving there is a mechanism for this to be possible.
In reality this year has been extremely different from the past in many other things, the changes in mortality may be explained by something as obvious as parents being more time in their houses or infants being less exposed to other respiratory diseases (because social distancing measures also work preventing those) at least these reasons have an advantage over vaccination and that is that they do not require time travel.
Children must be in good health when they take vaccinations. With covid 19, people who are sick often don't show symptoms, therefore it would possibly be negligent and risky for a doctor and parents to vaccinate under such conditions.
The possibility of being in the presyntomatic phase of an infection is always present, even without taking in account COVID-19, so according to you it would be negligent and risky to vaccinate at all.
What the doctors have to consider is the real possibility of this being the case, taking in account the number of cases and how exposed the children have been, if there is nothing that suggest the infant has any real chance of being infected, then the opposite of what you said is true, delaying vaccinations would put the child in more risk and could be negligent to do it.
At the end of the day the issue is a lack of information, parents were not informed properly of what is necessary or not, doctors were left to their own when deciding if they could recommend parents to come to get attention and nobody knows exactly how many cases are really around because of limited testing. The pandemic is a bad enough situation but it can become even worse with outbreaks of other preventable diseases.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
To be perfectly clear, every professional dealing with respiratory diseases know that all of them can be transmitted "airborne", the difference of opinion here is about how likely is that this mechanism produce contagions.
"The WHO has long maintained that COVID-19 is spread via larger respiratory droplets" is mistaken, what the WHO maintains is that the disease is mainly spread by larger respiratory droplets, it did not "dismissed the possibility of airborne transmission" but the possibility that this mechanism leads to a significant amount of infections.
The WHO guidelines specifically instruct, for example, that all research done with live COVID-19 samples has to be done inside safety cabinets with controlled airflow, because the simple opening of a test tube releases aerosols that are considered a risk of infection.
Another important point of this disagreement is that this is how science advances, with people that disagree with a conclusion presenting scientific data that supports a different explanation, and experts weighting it to find out what is more likely to be true. Political and economical realities will come later, but first of all is the evidence.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
While HDQ has been bashed and attacked ( because a very old, SAFE , CHEAP, worldwide available drug that actually works)
Other dangerous drugs are pushed aggressively by gain driven interests.
hydroxycholoquine has no demonstrated usefulness, at all. It does not matter how cheap it is if using it gives no benefit and can even put the patients in more risk, being old is not an advantage, and it not actually that safe, because it has very well known dangerous side effects.
And your theory that it is attacked just because it is cheap does not hold water either, dexametasone is also dirt cheap but unlike chloroquine it actually demonstrated to be useful in complicated patients, so it has not been "attacked", on the contrary is being recommended as a treatment everywhere in the world.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Any "virologist" that say that "There are no effective vaccine for any RNA virus" is either lying or is criminally inept. As it was easy to prove, this is completely false and some of the most reliable and effective vaccines are against RNA viruses. What is confusing about that?
A typical antivaxxer is unable to accept reality, it does not matter how clearly their theories are demonstrated as false, it will always be "confusing" just because it is impossible for them to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
And their last resort is always the Ad hominem, every time someone proves they lied automatically that means that someone is part of the world wide conspiracy to dominate the world. For them it completely escapes the imagination that someone could just be interested in correcting obvious lies, because giving value to the truth is a concept so alien to them that it is not even considered as an explanation.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Here are a few reasons why your reasons are completely invalid.
There are no effective vaccine for any RNA virus (influenza, hepatitis C, E, Ebola, etc). Those virus are always changing thus the well known inefficiency of the Flu shots.
False, what do you think causes Japanese encephalitis? or Yellow fever? RNA viruses, and the diseases are perfectly avoided by vaccines that produce life long protection. Thus your statement is simply mistaken.
No vaccine were ever made for ANY coronavirus (MERS, SARS, etc). Those disease tend to disapear on their own over time.
If you search in pubmed there are literally dozens of vaccines for both SARS and MERS, all giving really nice results in preclinical trials. The real reason why there are not commercialized is because by the time it was possible to do clinical trials the diseases were controlled (not naturally disappeared) so it makes no economic sense to invest in developing vaccines for a disease without any cases.
Considering the 2 facts above, what to think of a rushed vaccine, knowing that vaccination for flu for example has adverse effects for about 30% of people (ranging from soreness to more severe reactions), giving such untested shot to billions of people would likely make more damage than the disease itself.
A vaccine does not have to be rushed to be produced next year, if the most elementary procedure gives good results a safety/efficacy evaluation completely on par with every other vaccine is still possible without problems. And even if the vaccine had as much side effects as the one of influenza (nothing point to that being likely) most (rational) people would prefer to be sore for a day instead of risking an infection that can complicate to death.
A vaccine is supposed to give you the antibodies for a given disease artificially but in this case, it would appear than having the Covid-19 antibodies does not prevent you from getting the disease again. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13367319
Testing positive is a completely different thing from getting a disease, it is well known that nucleic acid can remain for days or weeks in the body and give positive results because the test do not search for the disease, only the viral RNA. So even completely "dead" viruses remaining in the secretions would give these results.
A real second infection is determined by a second peak of immunoglobulines, reflecting that the same pathogen is producing again infection and the immune system has to fight it again. That has not been found yet in any patient.
So this is also only a mistake.
Since the WHO (very corrupted organization, but still...) admitted that Covid-19 asymptomatic transmission is VERY RARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs , I suggest everyon to take off their stupid masks, take a chill-pill and carry on with their lives.
That makes absolutely nothing to the argument that wearing a mask definitely lowers the risk of transmission, so your suggestion, that goes against the recommendations of every professional health care association that has to do with the pandemic can safely be ignored until you can get scientific data to prove all the professionals of the world wrong. A safe, effective vaccine also would lower the risk and actually would make the mask unnecessary.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Posted in: One problem was that hematology patients were kept in the same ward as patients being treated for other illnesses. The arrangement likely caused an increase in infections among hematology patients who required special care, leading to a large number of fatalities. See in context
What could go wrong if you keep patients with severely diminished immunity together with people that may be infected with a virus extremely easy to transmit?
This is a very serious thing, that could lead to malpractice charges. People taking care of vulnerable patients have an increased responsibility to protect them from any foreseeable risk.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
'm sure social distancing is the most important thing going through peoples' minds as they've lost a lot of their stuff already...
Why would that be, it is not like being in a tragic situations would protect them from yet another. One thing is to lose everything but your life, and another is to know you are at risk of losing it and maybe even passing the infection to their loved ones. Specially because this happens every year so it was a completely predictable situation that the government had the responsibility of planning for, thinking you are being unnecessarily exposed to risk can really occupy a lot of time in your mind.
About the virus, well, why not test everyone who ends up in some gymnasium or shelter? Is there a shortage of test kits in Japan? How about the government hurry, instead of just worry?
Mostly because by the time the test results come back the people would already be at least a couple of days in relatively close contact, maybe even already out of there. I would help only to quarantine everybody afterwards but not to prevent contagion there.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@virusrex that is because there is no mention of permanent in the bbc link posted . read it . and you will see for yourself. influenza can also complicate like that.
It is there very clearly, did you even followed the link yourself? it immediately prove you wrong
But 10% said their symptoms remained the same or had worsened
What did you expect? people losing their sense of smell for years on a diseases present for half a year?
From a non virologist perspective there is no need to further dig deeper how exactly influenza strains differ from corona strains.
That is false, a mistake born from ignorance. It is extremely important to know the differences because that is what guides what is being done and what to expect from the future, has the virus recombined since the jump? is the antigenic domain of the spike protein any different? are neutralizing antibodies completely inneffective to some of the isolates but very effective to others? This is hugely important and means that both diseases are very different and vaccine development can be done with also very different amount of efforts.
What is this @virusrex ? It jumped from an animal remember ! It is very capable for antigenic change and recombination.
You again trying to disguise one full sentence for other that say something different? is it really that scary that your opinion can be so easily demonstrated as false that you have to shave sentences from the part that do it?
let me put it here again for you "...in half a year of being isolated"
That means that no, it is NOT very capable of antigenic change and recombination, the ancestral strain was, then it became covid-19 and after that we have observed not such a thing, even with world wide infections of millions of people.
So why panic about covid19 and not about influenza ? why not panic about other issues that kill people ?
Again I repeat this is not ebola , you / we should consider lucky this time.
Panic is not a response that can be recommended against anything. But it is extremely important to react much more strongly about covid-19 than to influenza because it produces much more death and sequelae EVEN under extremely heavy social distancing measures.
How is influenza transmission, hospitalization and lethal rates under a blockdown? how can you say both diseases are the same if you don't have that information?
This pandemic has a deep effect in public health, and people that do that work for a living in a very professional way are all in the opinion that more has to be done to control it and if not much more people are going to die and the economy will have a much more lasting slump that will end up causing many other secondary deaths.
One nameless person on the internet saying the contrary and defending his opinions only against purposefully redacted sentences because it cannot do anything against the real ones simply does not carry any weight in comparison.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Yes ! This bit is actually very similar to covid19
so you think it is valid to cut off the main point of a sentence in order to make sound as if they are "very similar"? It is understandable if you ignore things, what is completely invalid is to willingly persist in a position that has been demonstrated as false after giving up any effort to defend it.
Let me repeat the original comment
Does the flu result in permanent loss of smell and taste in 10 % of cases with such symptoms?
That is a huge difference.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
flu doesn't disappear, the rate of infection just drops. It lives on asymptomatic carriers. And as all corona virus, the virus will mutate every single time. Go ask your doctor. There is no cure for flu nor there is a cure for Covid.
That is a completely mistaken misrepresentation, influenza virus lives for a short while in asymptomatic carriers, but there is no evidence they can transmit the disease to anybody. That is completely unrelated to why influenza seasons happen.
All RNA virus mutate, that is also irrelevant, alpha, pesti, flavi, togaviruses for example exist in a constant state of mutation but infection give lifelong protection and for many that produce disease in humans and economically important animals it is extremely simple to develop vaccinations. COVID-19 has not demonstrated any antigenic change nor recombination as usual for orthomyxoviruses in half a year of being isolated, that makes the comparison invalid.
At this point is perfectly reasonable to expect a vaccine to be effective and long lasting. None of the reasons why there this has not been possible for influenza apply for covid-19
10 ( +10 / -0 )
Failure, that gives absolutely no information of influenza cases and death rates under very heavy social distancing measures, which is the situation you are using for covid-19, thinking is a valid comparison is like saying that a slap in the head with your hand is the same as done with a steel pipe because it hurt the same, except that the stell pipe hit was done while wearing a safety helmet.
Health care professionals still say you are completely wrong.
no lockdowns whatsoever countries and respective death rate per million:
Do you have troubles understanding that countries cannot be compared without very detailed adjustments? how effective are the lockdowns? for how long? what kind of social measures apart from lockdown were done? how is the culture about personal distance and body contact?
Thinking one single parameter can make 100% of the difference is just grasping at straws.
Why don't you compare the same country with and without lockdowns? is it because it proves you wrong every time?
At best, lockdowns and social distancing had no positive effects, something Dr. Don Ferguson has admitted.
The opinion of any single person is irrelevant if it is not supported by evidence and objective data, your only support are obviously invalid comparisons, that still means you are completely wrong.
The study further confirms what was so far discovered about the virus. And it empathizes further that any lock down or state of emergence or whatever you call it is not necessary anymore. Any call for that is scientifically baseless
Your own description makes it obvious your (not the authors') conclusion is wrong. if 16% of the population required hospitalization, how long do you think it would take to overrun the health services? and what happen with that 16% that cannot longer access the care necessary for surviving?
Are you seriously saying that the death of up to 16% of the population is not something worth considering?
Also, did you serriously thought nobody would check the reference to see that your conclusions are not part of the article?
Smallpox is the only human disease to have ever been completely eradicated and it was done by vaccination. We do not have a vaccine for coronavirus.
And do you think we got the vaccine for smallpox the year of the first cases? The argument was that viruses are supposedly impossible to eradicate, that is completely false, it can be done and we have two perfectly well described cases. Your comment does nothing to contradict what I wrote.
There is not reason why effective vaccination for covid-19 cannot be possible. Saying we dont have a vaccine now is a non-argument.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
Covid-19 has a proven death rate of about 0.2%, this disease is no more dangerous and as unavoidable as a severe seasonal flu, period.
And why every health care professional says precisely the opposite? what severe seasonal flu UNDER severe social restriction measures data are you using to say this?
With a total number of deaths of about 500 000 so far, none of the extreme total lockdown measures in the West, even the ridiculous late Japanese "restaurant" measures were unjustified.
Exactly, they have proven to be perfectly justified. Because the deaths happened on top of them being in place.
Why would Corona require the entire destruction of our societies and the abandonment of our basic liberties ? How many will have died because of these moronic, suicidal measures? The cancer patients, the suicides, the small companies... just think about it, was it worth it?
A big hint is that COVID-19 achieved this even with extremely costly measures, your case depends completely on the disease not producing any more damage without them, something that is not true at all.
And a vaccine... ridiculous. They tell you that having the Covid-19 antibody does not prevent you from getting the disease later (again). What is the point of a vaccine then, I wonder? The point of the vaccine in the best case scenario is to artificially give you the antibody!
That is false, having the antibodies MAY not prevent the disease, but it is much more likely that it will, at least for some time (6 months and counting). It is also perfectly possible to be protected even with low levels of antibodies, so the vaccination can protect people even if their Nabs titers are reduced quickly. That is the point of the clinical trials in later phases. You are just assuming.
2 ( +10 / -8 )
So we should try to erase the seasonal flue (which is also a Corona type virus)? And destroy the economy and civilian rights in the process?
False dichotomy, we destroyed the previous two examples without any real negative repercussions. So it is not only entirely possible to do it, but also it without a fixed price to pay for it.
Also, we ARE trying to erase the seasonal flu, with billions invested in research every year, the difference is that we don't run the risk of saturating fragile health care systems so we can have the luxury to not accomplish that goal soon without tragic consequences.
Why is nobody cackling for that?
Because the seasonal flu is a much milder disease that has much more completely adapted to humans with easily changing serotypes? you know, the extra detail that has not been found for the COVID-19.
Its much easier to justify the "destruction" of the economy when the disease can also do it except with a huge lot more of dead people on top of it.
3 ( +10 / -7 )