Author Topic: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?  (Read 34963 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #375 on: August 25, 2020, 12:46:56 AM »
My favourite Doctor.   Have a quick look at this.  https://youtu.be/I2KtnQXwrhg  "Doctor Reacts to CORONAVIRUS MEMES".
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #376 on: August 25, 2020, 10:59:59 PM »
Olympic great Usain Bolt tests positive for the coronavirus  https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/25/sport/usain-bolt-covid-19-coronavirus-birthday-spt-intl/index.html

I'm sure he will get over it super fast.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline misty

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #377 on: August 27, 2020, 02:22:28 AM »
It would be a lot harder to traceback from a foreign country.

Surely the principle of a person having antibodies to Covid19, in the same manner as being vaccinated against it, should negate the need for quarantining wherever they travel?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #378 on: August 27, 2020, 10:20:42 AM »
Surely the principle of a person having antibodies to Covid19, in the same manner as being vaccinated against it, should negate the need for quarantining wherever they travel?
Good point.   If the antibody test becomes reliable enough.  There seems to be a problem of detecting Covid 19 antibodies long term.  It seems the level of antibodies drop rapidly and may not be detectable after 4 months. 

Just last week it was shown that a person has been infected twice.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/first-case-covid-19-reinfection-reported-scientists

"A man in his thirties has tested positive again more than four months after his first infection. Source: Breakfast
Genetic tests revealed that a 33-year-old man returning to Hong Kong from a trip to Spain in mid-August had a different strain of the coronavirus than the one he’d previously been infected with in March, said Dr. Kelvin Kai-Wang To, the microbiologist who led the work."
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #379 on: August 29, 2020, 03:29:01 PM »


On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #380 on: September 29, 2020, 08:23:15 PM »
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/first-covid-19-case-happened-in-november-china-government-records-show-report?fbclid=IwAR16xxcnEvxig6MnASpDaMBMgDfm6NsAK5U4Pq44KVDksrD9NPMxOPZm5bs

"First Covid-19 case happened in November, China government records show - report
Earliest case detected on 17 November, weeks before authorities acknowledged new virus, says Chinese media

Coronavirus: live updates
Helen Davidson in Hong Kong
 @heldavidson
Fri 13 Mar 2020 06.39 GMT"
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Geordie

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #381 on: October 17, 2020, 08:18:31 PM »
I don't think it is being overegged and I spent 19 weeks shielding as I am clinically extremely vulnerable. Also for younger people there is long covid which appears to be neurological in many cases so could be for life and treatment is not that effective.

Keep safe everyone.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #382 on: October 19, 2020, 10:15:03 PM »
Some weird cheap treatments here https://youtu.be/_FqITndW4-U
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #383 on: November 02, 2020, 02:01:54 AM »
Have you considered what is happening once the body is able to break up the virus?   I'm thinking while the virus is intact the spike protein would just be interacting with one cell,  but if the virus is disrupted the thousands of spike proteins would be able to interfere with the angiotensin enzymes on thousands of sites.
https://youtu.be/uAc_S_STQRk

OVID-19 Insights: Hypercoagulability Role of the ACE2 Enzyme - Part 1  The Doctor here is very good at explaining the situation.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #384 on: January 22, 2022, 02:28:23 PM »

In answer to the opening post.

Yes, it was totally overegged.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Is the Coronavirus threat being overegged?
« Reply #385 on: February 05, 2022, 10:17:05 AM »
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
ABC, CBS, NBC also ignored the anti-lockdown study.


There has been a full-on media blackout of the new study outlining the ineffectiveness of lockdowns to prevent COVID deaths.

According to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies, lockdowns during the first COVID wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

However, the Johns Hopkins study received no mention on any of the five liberal networks this week. According to Grabien transcripts, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC all ignored the anti-lockdown findings after having spent much of the pandemic shaming red states with minimal restrictions and events deemed by critics as "superspreaders."

It wasn't just the networks avoiding the study. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, Axios, Politico among other outlets also turned a blind eye to the findings, according to search results.

The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths.

"We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%.

Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%.

The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.

"[Shelter-in-place orders] may isolate an infected person at home with his/her family where he/she risks infecting family members with a higher viral load, causing more severe illness," the researchers wrote.

"But often, lockdowns have limited peoples’ access to safe (outdoor) places such as beaches, parks, and zoos, or included outdoor mask mandates or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe (indoor) places."

The researchers also examined studies that focused on specific lockdown measures and found that the only intervention that reduced COVID-19 mortality was the closure of non-essential businesses, which reduced mortality by 10.6%, but this effect was likely driven by the closure of bars.

Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses.

From May 2020 to April 2021, the U.S. recorded 100,306 drug overdose deaths, a 28.5% increase from the 78,056 deaths that were recorded in the previous 12-month period, according to CDC data.

A study from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice last year found that domestic violence incidents increased 8.1% in the U.S. after lockdown orders were issued.

About 97% of U.S. teachers said that their students have experienced learning loss during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Horace Mann survey last year.

The unemployment rate peaked nationwide at 14.8% in April 2020, but declined to 3.9% in December, which is still slightly higher than the 3.5% rate it was at in February 2020.


"These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best," the researchers in the Johns Hopkins University study wrote. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero