Science

There's what the politicians call science, then there's the real science. This is the science on COVID. Following the science often means do the opposite of what the DNC and their media and 3 letter agencies are telling you to. It is remaining skeptical, questioning, and looking at both sides of what you are being told. Follow the evidence, not the politics. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2022-01-06

These are the articles on the real science.

COVID Immunity and mutation rate

           Main article: COVID Immunity and mutation rate

There's some dispute on the Coronavirus mutation rate. The basics are it is an RNA type virus, that's twice as complex and mutates at half the rate of the seasonal flu. Combined, that's an effective mutation rate at 1/4th the Flu. Is that slow enough that we can create vaccines? We aren't sure yet. We think so. But some Chinese researchers dove deeper and found more mutation and outcomes than expected. So need more info. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence in at least limited immunity (plasma/antibody treatment, low re-infection, and study on monkeys). Also there were a few stories about China or Korea finding patients who had been cured that later tested positive. But it is believed that it's just residual RNA fragments that haven't been flushed from the body yet. (Nothing to worry about). COVID Monkey Study - 2020.04.17 SARS-CoV-2 study on rhesus macaques seems to show at least limited immunity. COVID Reinfection - There was some initial scare mongering about how we wouldn't get immunity because we could be reinfected. China and South Korea had shown a few cases of people that were cured that came back positive in a later test. However, later studies indicated that this was likely just residual RNA fragments (de-activated) that hadn't been fully flushed from the body yet. Never mind. COVID Vaccine timeline - Shelter in place only makes sense if you know a vaccine is coming in <6 months. And we didn't know that. It turned out it was in about 10 months. But the costs of the shut-down still way outweighed the benefits, as proven by countries that didn't lock down. No immunity ends the shutdown - If COVID exposure doesn't offer immunity, then shelter-in-place while waiting for a vaccine that isn't coming, is a dumb idea. If COVID exposure does offer immunity, then a <0.1% chance of dying isn't a good excuse for destroying the economy and hurting people. Either way, we need to figure out how to live with the disease forever.

COVID Models

           Main article: COVID Models

There were models to teach us what we had to worry about with the Pandemic. 2020.03.13 NYT had their model which predicted 9.4M infections at peak (100M overall), and 1M dead and 366K ICU cases. That was with Social Distancing, cancelling large events and work from home. Based on what actually happened, that was pure fear mongering. 2020.03.17 Imperial College of London Covid-19 Response Team (Dr. Neil M. Ferguson) claimed even with Social Distancing & Quarantine, best case we would see 1.1 Million dead and Hospitals overwhelmed in America and worst case was 2.2 Million dead. FakeNews like The Intercept, NYT and CNN was hyping that. 2020.03.14 The CHIME model (Penn Medicines: COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics), was for modeling individual Hospitals and regions, and later turned out to way over-estimate the demands. But the media was more focused on national rather than regional modeling, so it didn't get as much attention unless sensationalizing the local impact of the crisis. 2020.03.26 The UW IHME (University of Washington, Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation), estimated 93K (39-177K) deaths, they dropped this to 82K (49-136K) on 04.07, and kept revising the numbers over time. While their initial projections in death rate were inflated, they were off by more on their Hospitalization and ICU beds (peak demand of 40,646 ICU beds, and a bed shortage of 23K ICU beds). They halved those projections over the next weeks, but were still off by 5-10x actual requirements. Regionally they were often worse. 2020.03.29 Donald Trump said the death projections were between 100-200K, but we expected to get that down with the latest measures and upcoming treatments and the media was aghast. MSNBC (Chris Hayes) and others accused the President of lying or sandbagging (inflating numbers). But people called them on it, and pointed out it was Fauci, the task forces numbers based on the IMHE model, so that was shut down pretty quickly.

COVID Studies

           Main article: COVID Studies

COVID Death Rates - IFR (Infection Fatality Rate aka Death Rate) is number of deaths divided by number of infections. These were intentionally exaggerated to scare people during COVID. In reality, the death rates settled to about Flu levels. (Though later variants were more virulent). The agencies meant to prevent panic and disinformation, were pertpetuators of it. COVID Monkey Study - 2020.04.17 SARS-CoV-2 study on rhesus macaques seems to show at least limited immunity. COVID Study - Boston - 2020.04.15 CDC did a random sample of the Pine Street Inn homeless shelter in Boston (as the area had a cluster of cases). 397 people tested: 146 tested positive, all asymptomatic. 36% positive and 100% asymptomatic, of some generally unhealthy people, hints that this is NOT the killer that the media portrays. COVID Study - China - Doctors did a model based on China total cases, hospitalizations and deaths, to calculate a 1.38% CFR (Case Fatality Rate / Death Rate), well below WHO/CDC's 3.4%. The biggest thing it showed is the age spread, that it was way more lethal to elderly than youth. And that undercounted cases by 85x, or it would be a 0.016% CFR. COVID Study - Colorado - San Miguel County, Colorado tested all 8,000 residents and ≈3% of the population had been exposed. Projecting that out would imply 2.6 - 10M total cases, instead of the 418K that is reported (reported numbers are off by 6-24x). This would push the CFR (Fatality Rate) down to 0.1-0.5% or 1/34th of the reported numbers. COVID Study - Diamond Princess - Cruise Ship Diamond Princess ≈20% (712) of the people on board (3,711) caught COVID, and 14 died. Despite cruisers being way more elderly than average population, 18% were asymptomatic, and it had a 1.1% CFR (Case Fatality rate), not the 3.8% that China, WHO and CDC was telling people. COVID Study - Germany - Germany random sampling (80% of town), in the hardest hit german area of Gangelt, and found that ≈15% case rate and thus a case fatality rate was 0.37%. Lots of media reports on this low death rate in Germany, while failing to note that's because they got a more accurate denominator (total case count). COVID Study - Iceland - Iceland did the earliest and largest random sampling (36,000 sample size, ≈10% of their population) for antibodies, and found between 0.3%-0.8% contained the antibodies, >50% were asymptomatic, which is a 0.3% case fatality rate. COVID Study - L.A. - USC and LA County Department of Public Health did an antibody scan of L.A. (863 sample size), and found 4.1% of 10.4 million people had been exposed (5x higher than expected). 221,000 - 442,000 people in L.A. County had COVID (instead of the 7,994 reported). Against 600 deaths means an CFR of 0.27% - 0.135% or similar to the seasonal Flu. COVID Study - Massachusetts - Chelsea, Mass random sample study found 64 of 200 people (32%) tested positive for COVID antibodies. None of them was counted in official cases, so we know that the denominator (cases) were understated, and thus the death rates are way overstated. COVID Study - Miami - Miami-Dade County completed two rounds of random sampling (1,800 sample size) covering 32 municipalities / 2.75 million people for antibodies, and both surveys found between 4.4% and 7.9% contained the antibodies, >50% had no symptoms. Extrapolated: 123K - 221K cases in the county, thus a 0.13% - 0.23% fatality rate, in an area overwhelmingly populated by elderly residents. COVID Study - NY - NY testing resulted in 24.7% of people in New York City had tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, 15.1% in Westchester/Rockland, 14.4% in Long Island, 3.2% in the rest of the state tested positive. 15% of pregnant Mom's were already infected with COVID and 86% were asymptomatic or mild symptoms. COVID Study - Netherlands - The Dutch did an antibody study, as they'd been hit hard by the disease, and found that 3% of the population (518,400) had COVID, compared to the 38,802 offical number. Which dropped their CFR (Fatality Rate) down to 0.9%. COVID Study - Santa Clara - Stanford did an antibody scan of Santa Clara (3,330 sample size), and found between 2.49%-4.16% of 1.9 million people had been exposed (or 50-80 times higher than expected). Which would mean 55,000-81,000 people in Santa Clara County have had it (instead of the 1,833 reported), against 69 deaths means an CFR (Death Rate) of 0.125%, or similar to the seasonal Flu. COVID Study - Theodore Roosevelt - We had an outbreak on an Aircraft Carrier (Theodore Roosevelt), and 20% (955 of 4,845 sailors) had antibodies: 50%+ were asymptomatic, 4 were hospitalized, 1 died. ≈0.1% CFR COVID Study - Washington - 2020.04.15 Seattle/King County was doing a SCAN of the population, and despite being a hotspot initially, seemed to show only 0.24% had been exposed. But this outlier may be more a reflection on the quantity/quality of testing, either that, or their lockdown efforts were so effective that they successfully avoided getting any Herd Immunity. Conclusion All the random sample studies found COVID-19 antibodies in large undercounted swaths of the population. The denominator matters. A half dozen studies that shows COVID to be ≈30 times less lethal than the WHO and CDC are saying is problematic. Both have been slow at not correcting the misconceptions that they and the media put out. At this point, it's not an accident. They are intentionally trying to terrorize people (inflate the death numbers and not correct them) because they think it gets more compliance using terror than using truth. That's a problem: that's politics, not science. I have a problem with that. I think it is self-defeating. Each time their lie is getting exposed without them being honest and correcting their first unverified overstatements, they are feeding the anger, and eventual backlash that will happen over being lied to for so long. That comes with risks. If a second wave comes, or another pathogen, people are going to die, because they've been taught not to trust the CDC, WHO or Government and the media, by these lies of commission and omission.

COVID Testing

           Main article: COVID Testing

When you're trying to contain a disease break-out, testing matters. Once the disease is in the general population -- and contact tracing and controls are impractical, testing is strictly for individual diagnostics (to decide treatment) or for trend tracking in your community. This is especially true if the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) of the disease is closer to that of the flu than ebola. If the Press isn't telling you that, it's FakeNews. And if an economist is telling you we need to test everyone before we go back to work, they're idiots or frauds. Based on COVID Studies we can guesstimate that 10-20M Americans have been exposed to COVID, and that number is far higher globally. The idea that you can test all of us weekly, and contract trace everyone who shows positive is delusional. Police states don't have the resources to do this, and they aren't limited by our Constitution or armed population with a passion for civil liberties (including privacy). Roadmap to Pandemic Resilience In a dim-witted post, a "Blue Ribbon" panel of far left "thought leaders" thinks that we need 20M tests before we should open the economy. It fails to mention that they won that ribbon from the AKC (as Chinese Crested Hairless's), and that number was the product of their de-worming pill. A quick search (and applying basic logic) is that: we have ≈400 metros in the U.S. (and that's pretty generous on what's a metro) -- if you figure 100 tests per day each, thats 40,000 tests/day. if we do Hospital level tracking (5,724), >10 localities per metro at a twice-weekly interval (overkill for places like Carson City or Walla Walla), and you'll need 163,542 tests/day Either is more than enough for trend tracking to know if your part of a city is heating up or cooling down, and if your mitigation efforts are working, and what resources or policy changes you need. Which is all this kind of test is for. 50 - 500x as many tests doesn't really help much (as we can't respond or de-noise faster than that), it just wastes a lot of resources. Remember the basics: We have too many active cases to trace contacts... anyone suggesting we create a surveillance state, would also be requiring we create a police state to enforce it. And they're Marxist morons, we can ignore. The lagging nature of symptoms/tests means you should still treat everyone as a potential threat whether they have had a test, or are asymptomatic or not. So there should be no "go back to work" papers as the morons claim. Too many false positives or negatives, and we don't know if you can re-catch or become a carrier even if you're "immunized". And we can't wait months until we have "herd immunity" to go back to work. Sorry, you just have to accept that people are going to get sick, and/or allow more remote workers for a while. Spot testing first responders, isn't a bad thing -- but if they're asymptomatic and following protocols they shouldn't give it to patients. And if they following protocols they shouldn't get it from patients. So the value of these tests aren't nearly as important as the policies and enforcement of protocols. Spot testing admissions? Meh. During an outbreak all staff and patients should be treated as contagious -- so it helps with diagnostics, but not in preventing contagion. Conclusion So the 20M number for tests? Completely fabricated and unnecessary. Either they're idiots that don't know economics or medicine, or they do and have an agenda. What they're really saying is that they haven't held the economy under water long enough, because they're still seeing bubbles. Let's move the goalpost until the bubbles stop. It's up to you guess why they would want to do that. Some reasons might be: When I'm being generous I'd guess they want a new dependency class of unemployed, layabouts, welfare queens and other Democrats. Either that or they want to set a brain dead milestone (that no one can meet), then accuse the administration of failing because they can't meet it The more cynical take is that they want to destroy the country and remake it in their Socialist (USSA) image, and they are willing to sacrifice as many lives and jobs as it takes to get there

COVID Therapeutics

           Main article: COVID Therapeutics

There are also many existing drugs that offer some help with COVID. A few include: Hydroxychloroquine (or Chloroquine) showed great early results in some prelim studies, but since Trump mentioned it, the hate-Trump media and far-left attacked it as "unproven", and some bad politicians restricted its use, and leftist scientists even did junk studies to sabotage a promising treatment. They'd rather see people die than for Trump to have given people some hope. Gilead’s Remdesivir was developed to treat Ebola, and seems to help work as an anti-viral for COVID AstraZeneca's Calquence (used for leukaemia), is being studied to see if it helps with a immune response (cytokine storm) related to COVID Ivermectin Antibody therapy

COVID Treatment

           Main article: COVID Treatment

So multiple vaccines coming, multiple treatments, low death rates, it's generally only taking out old people with multiple severe chronic conditions... so while there's the possibilities of mutations that make this virus worse, or that reactions to the vaccines (or their lack of complete effectiveness), we've never been as technologically prepared as we are for this pandemic. This is NOT the 1918 Spanish Flu.

COVID Vaccines

           Main article: COVID Vaccines

Unvaccinated Many times where Joe Biden/left claimed the vaccine would stop the spread, and if it was spreading, it was your fault for not getting vaccinated. The left screamed that Trump was lying when he said we'd have a vaccine in 2020 (Operation Warp Speed). It delivered in Nov 2020. The FDA and drug companies delayed it until after the election, because they didn't want Trump to win (killing people in the delay), or it would have delivered sooner. Ignoring the science of mutation, the left then promised it would stop the spread and get us to zero COVID if you just got your vaccine. The lie was "it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated". Since that wasn't true, they claim they never said that. In truth, once >50% is vaccinated, the mutation that spreads to the vaccinated will outperform the one that doesn't and it became a pandemic of the vaccinated. There were early indications of some complications. For high risk cohors (old, comorbidities) it makes sense to get vaccined anyways. But for healthy/young/low-risk, it does not. The left put mandates on everyone to get vaccines, and punished/fired/harassed those that wouldn't. Resulting in more death and suffering than if they left it up to individuals.

Science

           Main article: COVID/Science

Following the Science means to do the opposite of what Democrats said, every step of the way: COVID Immunity and mutation rate - There's some dispute on the Coronavirus mutation rate. The basics are it is an RNA type virus, that's twice as complex and mutates at half the rate of the seasonal flu. Combined, that's an effective mutation rate at 1/4th the Flu. Is that slow enough that we can create vaccines? We should have known. We didn't. We call that willfully ignorant. (Or paid off). COVID Models - There were multiple models used to scare the rubes on what we had to worry about with the COVID Pandemic. They were terribad. They either under-estimated or over-estimated the dead. But even when they got close, they got the time scale to get those deaths off by orders of magnitude (and would have been more wrong, if the predicted the Vaccines, but wrong on that as well). COVID Studies - Over a dozen Antibody tests (by April 2020) prove that we are completely being lied to about the denominator (how many total cases there are), which inflates the death rate and scares people unnecessarily. The continuing lockdown is anti-science, senseless, and done for a political agenda. COVID Testing - When trying to contain a disease break-out, testing matters. Once the disease is in the general population (March 2020), contact tracing and controls are impractical, testing is just trend tracking in communities. So those claiming we couldn't open until we had millions of tests were lying to keep us locked down. That wasn't science, that was fascism. COVID Therapeutics - There are also many existing drugs that offer some help with COVID. A few include: Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, Ivermectin, Calquence, Antibody therapy COVID Treatment - There are a lot of positives for various treatments around COVID... COVID Vaccines - Failures on vaccines; (1) it wouldn't get released in 2020 (2) the virus wouldn't out mutate the vaccine / vaccines would lear to zero COVID (3) there wouldn't be complications and the risks were low so everyone should take it (4) we should mandate everyone get it, incuding children (ignore risks/cohorts). COVID/Science - Following the science often means do the opposite of what the DNC and their media and 3 letter agencies are telling you to. It is remaining skeptical, questioning, and looking at both sides of what you are being told. Follow the evidence, not the politics., The left wants less free choice for most people, most of the time, unless it furthers a leftist cause du jour. In this case, the NYT and NY Legislature wants to allow kids to get COVID vaccines, in order to help us get to herd immunity levels that they pulled out of their asses. Herd Immunity - Herd immunity means that enough people have had a disease, that the contagion can't spread and dies out. (Basically the effective R0, or how many people each person with the disease passes it on to, is less than 1 other person). This belief leads to misconceptions. This article addresses those. Parental Consent for Vaccines - The left wants less free choice for most people, most of the time, unless it furthers a leftist cause du jour. In this case, the NYT and NY Legislature wants to allow kids to get COVID vaccines, in order to help us get to herd immunity levels that they pulled out of their asses. Reaction to COVID - The Nocebo Effect (fear/stress/uncertainty) kills. Democrats maximized that "opportunity" for money, power and political gain, without regard to the costs. Don't talk about compassion, if you are willing to hurt or kill for a political agenda. Vaccines and Anti-Vaxxers - Both sides can be preachy and wrong. While I'm no anti-Vaxxer (I've gotten all mine, I don't think vaccines are the cause of autism, and I would get them for my imaginary kids), I find the anti-Vax crowd has points that the anti-anti-vax crowd is either unwilling or incapable of understanding (their arguments are more focused around the cult of authority).

Herd Immunity

           Main article: Herd Immunity

Herd immunity means that enough people have had a disease, that the contagion can't spread and dies out. (Basically the effective R0, or how many people each person with the disease passes it on to, is less than 1 other person). This belief leads to misconceptions. Some people think that needs to be 60 or 80% of the population. Oversimplified: a disease with an R0 of 3 would require >66% of the population to have immunity so that more than 2 out of 3 people it tried to pass it to, would already have immunity -- dropping the transfer rate below 1.0 and the disease would die out. Basically, true, but there's more to it. Herd immunity stacks on other measures: so if you can reduce a contagion to spreading 1/2 as fast by social distancing, hand sanitization, masks, etc., then the R0 of 3.0 is now effectively a 1.5. Which loosely means that if >33% (1 in 3) people already has it, that slows it by an additional 33%, and you're below 1.0, and it would die out. Behavior/culture modifies transfer speed (R0). Distribution vectors also matter. Not everyone is equally at risk from everyone else. We have cliques and social circles (clusters/tribes). Someone in BF Idaho doesn't have an equal threat from someone in NYC or Wuhan as from their neighbor or family, because they interact with them slower and less often. If the people immunized are all the people that travel from NYC to BF Idaho, then it doesn't matter if anyone in Idaho has herd immunity, because you cut off the threads of transfer. So inoculating the 5% that travel, could offer significant protections for the other 95% of the sub-population. This is why the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic only infected only 30% of the population -- and NOT 80% required to get theoretical herd immunity. There was a common sense post that some claimed was "controversial" that basically explained that since 1/3rd of people are responsible for over 2/3rd of interactions, her immunity happens faster than requiring everyone to be equally immunized. The idea is simple and obvious, even if the numbers can be disputed -- but since some people either don't understand common sense, or want the problem to be bigger than it is, they attack sources that point out obvious things like this. ❝ One thing both economists and epidemiologists seem to be lacking is an awareness of the problems of aggregation. Most models in both fields see the population as one homogenous mass of individuals. But sometimes, individual variation makes a difference in the aggregate, even if the average is the same. In the case of pandemics it makes a big difference how the infection rate varies in the population. Most models assume that it is the same for everyone. But in reality, human interactions are not evenly distributed. Some people shake hands all day, while others spend their day in front of a screen. This uneven distribution has an interesting effect: those who spread the virus are the most likely to get it. This means that the infection rate looks very high in the beginning of a pandemic, but sinks once the super-spreaders have had the disease and got immunity. Also, it means herd immunity is reached much earlier : not after 70% of the population is immune, but after who are involved in 70% of the interactions are immune. At average, this is the same, but in practice, it can make a bit difference... ❞ ~ Konrod ℹ️ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWYQFZtXYAI6yGI?format=jpg&name=large  🗒️ Note: Simulations that don't show this clustering, or high transmission versus low transmission vectors, are fundamentally dishonest/misleading.

Parental Consent for Vaccines

           Main article: Parental Consent for Vaccines

Leftists want to eliminate parental consent for children to get COVID vaccine The left wants less free choice for most people, most of the time, unless it furthers a leftist cause du jour. In this case, the NYT and NY Legislature wants to allow kids to get COVID vaccines, in order to help us get to herd immunity levels that they pulled out of their asses. ℹ️ Info           Always question the premises: (a) we need to get to 80% to get herd immunity (b) thus children are required to get there (c) only 30% of children are on track to be vaccinated (because of reluctance of parents) (d) Thus governments should allow children (teens) to make their own decisions on vaccines. Well a few problems here... virtually all those assumptions are wrong, so the conclusion is too. Facts (a) We reached herd immunity at around 50% in prisons and on cruise ships -- and those are more confined and interactive than society at large. Just because Fauci pulls a number like 80% out of his ass, doesn't mean we should believe it. (Historically, viruses collapsed much earlier than thought -- and this one appears to be based on collapsing caseloads) The reason we collapse sooner? Basic epedimiology -- it is NOT that you need to reduce the population by 80%, you only need to reduce the interactions between people/clusters by 80%. If 20% of your people are doing 80% of the interactions, the right 20% immunized can give you herd immunity. And since those people are the most likely to catch it quickly, this is why most pandemics seem to peak quicker, but lower, and fade away sooner than expected. (b) The vast majority of disease spread is through symptomatic transmission. Children are mostly asymptomatic, and while few get it, there are even rarer conditions where they pass it (e.g. the functional R0 is far lower in this group in getting it). Remember, you're trying to slow transmissions, not cases. You don't need 80% of the population, you need about 50% of transmissions to stop. You not only don't need kids to get to achieve that herd immunity. But you get diminishing returns in vaccinating kids, because they aren't a prime transmission vector. So with case loads collapsing, there's no evidence we need kids to be vaccinated. (c) 30% is the number for initial willingness. That number will change over time if it is safe. (d) If kids aren't responsible enough to buy guns, alcohol, drive cars, or get tattoos, or take whatever drugs they want -- then why is this drug an exception? You'd have to show excessive societal need to infringe on parental rights -- and we certainly aren't close to that. Conclusion So I'm up for letting states decide from a constitutional point of view, I'm also against any moronic state subverting parental rights based on medical ignorance or political motivations over scientific ones. 🔗 More New York Times A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased, occasionally good content. COVID COVID-19 (for COrona VIrus Disease circa 2019 or SARS-CoV-2) was a pandemic/opportunity for the left to seize liberty/power from the masses. COVID COVID-19 (for COrona VIrus Disease circa 2019 or SARS-CoV-2) was a pandemic/opportunity for the left to seize liberty/power from the masses. Science There's what the politicians call science, then there's the real science. This is the science on COVID., Leftists want to eliminate parental consent for children to get COVID vaccine 🔗 Links https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/06/27/eliminating-parental-consent-for-vaccines-n399183 Tags: NYT  COVID  COVID/all  COVID/Science

Reaction to COVID

           Main article: Reaction to COVID

If you understand the Nocebo Effect, and how fear/stress/uncertainty harms people, you were horrified by the response to COVID. 330 million Americans (billions globally), who are told a disease with the death rate of the flu, is going to kill them if they don't stay locked up in their homes, wear ineffective cloth masks, and stop working out or doing things that give them stress relief. And the results were hundreds of thousands of "extra" deaths over normal. Some were easily traceable like abuse (substance/physical), and others were just higher rates of hypertension or attributed to underlying causes that wouldn't have ended a life, if people weren't put under the psychological stresses caused by the left's sensationalism. Things that harm people: Being locked away Closing all sports facilities, many parks, much recreation Restricting social life, families, travel Destroying livelihoods Threat of an uncertain future (career, social, etc) Promoting social divide and destroying families Using insufficiently-tested vaccines and therapies under threat of death This was NOT done unknowingly. The evidence of the costs were there -- but when people got too loud, they were censored, fired, attacked. The left had a "The Great Reset" as their agenda (remaking the world economy under threat of an external factor). And when COVID wasn't enough, they just moved back to Climate Crisis, or Social Justice as their next excuses for the same agenda. But the following proves it's not an accident: Censorship Suppression of evidence Propaganda (Fake Science) downplaying 99.9%+ survival rate Intimidation / Demanding compliance Closing Schools, Restaurants, Gyms, and Churches -- while keeping open bars Over-sensitive testing with lots of fear-inducing false positives (including “asymptomatic") Over-counting death rates in general and misattributing everything to COVID deaths Destroying many jobs through lockdownsm, vaccine mandates, thought policing Isolating kids through school shutdowns Conclusion A common measure for the risk of a disease is the total decline in life expectancy due to it. (How many years of life are lost, when looking at your expected lifespan). Obesity averages 10 years Diabetes (Type-2) averages 6 years Hypertension averages 5 years COVID averages 0 years It killed mostly old and very sick people (comorbidities), and thus most people that died, died within a few months (or a year) of when they were going to die anyways. Most people weren't going to die. Thus the total death impact was immeasurably small. That doesn't mean there weren't tragedies. There were great and otherwise healthy people that died because of COVID. It's just that would happen anyways due to other things, and the relative risk of this was FAR lower than other significant things. I lost both of my parents not due to COVID... but fear of COVID (and hospitals during COVID), causing them to delay treatment on other health issues... that they delayed treatment went too far and they died from those easily treatable issues instead. Their lives mattered too. And their millions of other deaths were a consequence of political policies and an agenda that callously was willing to sacrifice them at the altar of political opportunism.

Vaccines and Anti-Vaxxers

           Main article: Vaccines and Anti-Vaxxers

I hardly have a dog in this fight, and don't have a problem (in theory) with either side -- but both sides can be preachy and wrong. While I'm no anti-Vaxxer (I've gotten all mine, I don't think vaccines are the cause of autism, and I would get them for my imaginary kids), I find the anti-Vax crowd has points that the anti-anti-vax crowd is either unwilling or incapable of understanding (their arguments are more simplistic and focused around the cult of authority). There are extremes and idiots on both sides, but I usually throw out the outliers and listen to the moderates on both sides, and the anti-Vaxxers I know, are far more well reasoned than the anti-anti-Vaxxers, at least based on the arguments both sides have presented. That could just be the circle of libertarian minded friends, or many articles I've read. But I've searched and found few anti-anti-vaxxers that were well informed or willing to concede valid points. To me, it's not ignorance that's a problem, but willful ignorance mixed with preachy sanctimony that gets on my nerves. This article has a few reminders on these facts.   Trolley Problem The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment where a runaway trolley is going to kill five people tied to one track, or you can divert the trolly to a side track and kill one person. Which is more ethical? The problem isn't just counting the fewest deaths, but in the nuance in letting something bad happen (indirect responsibility), or being directly responsible for the death of someone else. Liberty and the Trolley Problem One of the more interesting arguments, is who has control over your life (or your children’s lives): you or the state? I'm firmly in the camp of letting people make mistakes that hurt themselves as malevolent liberty is still better than benevolent tyranny. All choices around public safety tend to save some lives, and cost others. Some will assume because they save more lives than they cost, "hey net win" -- they're not thinking through the complexities of the Trolley Problem. If you make their choices for them, then you own the deaths. Whereas when you let them make their own choices, they own their own consequences. Thus while I'm not for avoiding responsibility of my own decisions, I am for not making life and death decisions for others. I see that as THE slippery slope to best be avoided. Vaccination debate goes back to the early 1800’s, and probably the mid 1500’s when inoculations first started in China. (This cartoon goes back to 1802). The historical record for most anti-vaxxer behavior is: (a) someone questions the safety/validity of a vaccine, often with a study (b) people react to that (c) at some later date, the claims are shown either true or false. (More often false: like the erroneous "MRR increases autism" scare). But most isn’t always false. With EVERY vaccination there is a risk. It is lower than the risk of the disease itself (and thus, I’ve always chosen to get them for myself): but even the safest vaccines have these 1:10,000 complications, and 1:1,000,000 deaths/cripplings/etc. So I don't agree with exaggerated toxicity and risks of vaccines, many of the minor amounts of nasty chemicals as stabilizers, etc, aren't dangerous in the levels given. And the studies that show otherwise are usually debunked later. So I'm not concerned myself. But who gets to decide those risks for you or your children, you or the state? Yes, you not taking that risk does endanger others. And yes, statistically, we can prove that it’s better for the collective to force these on to everyone, knowing a few will die because of it. But is that really your choice to make for them? I liken it to mandatory seatbelt laws. Most of the time wearing your seatbelt will lower your risk of death in a car accident. However, math and statistics say that in a few rare cases it increases the chances of death or injury. I was in a car crash (from right oblique angle) where the belt pinned my hip but left my upper body to twist more, and might have increased injury. I choose to take that risk and wear my seatbelt, because statistics tell me I’ll win more than I lose. But isn’t that my choice to make? Forcing seatbelt laws will save more lives than it kills, but it will kill some people. Isn't the state liable for those deaths if they outlaw the choice? With vaccines and herd immunity, your body may hurl from the wreckage and harm innocent bystanders, but again, you might be thrown free from a burning wreckage, and whose choice is it? So from what I’ve seen, I still don’t agree with the anti-vaxxers (not used derogatorily), and I have a few friends that are. I personally think the odds are still better to get kids and self vaccinated than not. But there are some rare complication rates and batches that are bad, and I'm not willing to force my view on "them", and tell them what choices they need to make with their or their kids lives, on the even more rare likelihood that there will be an outbreak of X, and that it will impact me or my family. So I support vaccinations. But I also support other people’s right to decide for themselves and their kids, over the state making the decision for them. The state has and will continue to make mistakes with vaccines, there have been bad batches, and many of the diseases are so rare, that it is possible the risks of the vaccines are exceeding the rewards. But even if not — no right should be more precious than that of individuals deciding which risks they are forced to take, or what they put in their body. }} Who are the anti-vaxxers, and why? Anti-vaxxers are a large and diverse group (a few percent of 300M is still 9M people). And it's hard to generalize, because there's so many different reasons. The movement seems to have taken root a lot more among the left than the right (at least the celebrity anti-Vaxxers), like: Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy, Alicia Silverstone, Mayim Bialik, Charlie Sheen, Jim Carrey, Kristin Cavallari, Holly Robinson Peete, Aidan Quinn, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Lisa Bonet, and so on. Lots of vocal anti-vaxxers on that side of the aisle, few on the other, but the Press has often played it off as a right wing anti-science phenom. But it's mostly a small percentage of society (≈1-3% of the population) that asks for personal exemptions for personal or religious reasons. A far bigger and more serious group is illegal immigrants (since immunizations are required for legal immigrants). There's certainly a few followers of celebrity on the left, educated skeptics on the right, and a few conspiracy nuts on both sides, who are anti-vaxxers. I have a few friends that are anti-vaxxers, but they're mostly highly educated, quite reasonable, and thus their arguments are more intelligent and researched than those who oppose them. That might just be selection bias (I have a circle of smart and libertarian minded friends). But even so, the point is that their arguments for why they do or don't choose something is often quite well reasoned. And they've persuaded me, that there's enough grey-areas in this argument, that unless it's a case of a mass outbreak of a highly contagious and lethal disease (requiring the immediacy of survival), that we should leave this in the land of individual choice. The rest of this article goes into why. Vaccines save lives There's a lot of people who are sure of things that just aren't so. Like they think vaccines protected us from disease like the measles or scarlet fever. Only it wasn't. Look at these graphs and diseases rates before and after vaccines: Infection rates For just Measles There's no doubt that the things that helped the most with most infection diseases was just advances in technology like clean water, waste disposal, hygine, nutrition, less crowding. All the disease rates were dramatically on the decline long before vaccines, and some like Scarlet fever dropped to near zero, despite there being no vaccine. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't vaccinate, it's just that vaccines are a much smaller part of what protects us from serious illness than the anti-anti-vaxxers will tell you. If you eliminated vaccines, it's not like there's going to be sudden outbreaks that wipe out our civilization. 90% of the reasons we eliminated (or reduced) most diseases were not vaccines, thus the a few people not taking them doesn't suddenly reverse that trend (unless there's other things at play). So vaccines are good things. But they're credited with way, WAY more than they deserve. By the time we started mass indoctrinating and vaccinating, most of the risks had been seriously mitigated. And anyone that argues based on fear/ignorance that vaccines are what's saved society or is what's protecting their kids, should be educated (on the realities) or ignored (as too stupid to learn). But we shouldn't allow their lies/deceptions to propagate uncontested. You know what increases contagious diseases? Crowding unvaccinated illegal aliens in tight quarters, make them share bathrooms. Again the point is that if anti-anti-vaxxers were consistently pro-public health, they'd be anti-illegal-immigration, for public safety reasons. Bring this up to see how they respond, and if they really are concerned about public safety, or political agendas. Herd Immunity Vaccines provide two values (a) direct protection (b) indirect protection (herd immunity). If your neighbor isn't immunized, it doesn't matter towards direct protection at all. Direct protection is whether you catch the disease because of your immunization, or if you do, if your immune system is boosted enough to beat the disease handily (before you're contagious or able to spread it). The only time your neighbors immunization matters (to you), is whether they provide herd immunity. And specifically, if they are the difference between crossing the threshold on herd immunity (the difference between causing or preventing an outbreak in your area). Virtually nowhere in the country is my getting vaccinated (or not) going to change the herd immunity thresholds. Diptheria, hepatitus B, polio and rubella all have vaccine effectiveness above (and herd immunity rates well below), current vaccination rates. Meaning we're past the thresholds needed. Thus a few percent of your neighbors not getting immunized holds zero risks to you, or your kids. (It's not going to cause an outbreak, and your vaccine would protect you if it did). Mumps, whooping cough and chicken pox all have vaccines whose effectiveness is LOWER than the level needed for herd immunity. Meaning more than 100% of people would have to get immunized to offer herd immunity. You're only protected by the direct benefit of the vaccine. Thus a few percent getting immunized or not, has zero risks to you or your family. All that is left is measles. And that one is both. There are areas of the country or State (California), where we're either well above/below (by 10-40%) what's required for herd immunity. Measles has a problem in that illegal alien communities, many haven't gotten immunized. So they're well below the rates necessary. But the anti-anti-vaxxers aren't usually complaining, attacking or trying to legislate against illegal aliens -- the direct problem. They vilify those getting personal or religious exemptions. But in none of those areas, is the 1-3% getting personal/religious exemptions able to make us cross the threshold for herd immunity. They're not the problem, nor will forcing them to violate their personal/religious beliefs going to make . So we're above herd immunity in most serious diseases. And the rates of immunization are going up very slightly (not down). So we're not even at risk of losing herd immunity. In most places, it's better than it looks because it's only a few communities that have risk of outbreak. (And that's very localized to illegal alien communities, dragging the average down). On top of that the actual immunization rate is likely higher than the reported rate. To qualify for full immunization we require things like two doses of MMR (an immunization cocktail). Why? Because early on, there were storage problems of the vaccine and some were getting a weaker dose -- so we double-pump the kids, just to "be safe". Since then, improved handling has eliminated the need that, but not changed the bureaucratic requirement. So if you only got one set of shots, you're fully protected medically, but not considered immunized bureaucratically. Just like if you only got measles or rubella immunizations individually, you might not be counted as immunized for any of them, because you're not bureaucratically immunized for all of them (the MMR checkbox isn't checked). Or if you actually caught one of the diseases, you have been immunized by virtue of having had the disease, but you're not counted as immunized, because you didn't get the state approved shot. So if you care, the trends (and threshold in your area) is something to keep an eye on. But unless you're in an area that's crossing a threshold, there's vitrually nothing to worry about at these levels. And I've never found an anti-anti-vaxxer ever show that they were in a community that was near or crossing that threshold. Or that they were informed enough to know. Thus all their complaints about their homeschooled neighbor getting vaccinated or not, is based on ignorance and control, not medical risks. So if it doesn't matter, why force them? To repeat the point, 99% of the potential diseases in the U.S., we're either way over, or way under, those thresholds for herd immunity. Thus whether we get compliance or not has no difference on public safety. Anyone with a clue on the topic, knows this. So why, do the bills mandating vaccines have all of these listed, plus a blank check for any more in the future, mandated? Are all the legislators stupid? Or are they counting on their constituency to be gullible? You'll never find anti-anti-vaxxer (progressive) that will answer those questions, because the answers aren't pretty. The answer is core to those trying to force others. Progressivism: ideas so good, they need to be implemented by force. Forcing others to do broad spectrum immunizations is completely unnecessary, and is a tool used to scare the public more than educate them. Thus it's about many things: teaching compliance to statism it is about teaching people to give up liberties under false-flag of public safety and teaching the gullible to do what they are told without question (and attack others who do not follow hard enough). This is the bottled water, Alar, DDT, Bird Flu, Electromagnetic Fields, Mercury, Floride, Killer Bees, Bee Collapse Disorder and the Salt scares that came before it. The politicians will keep selling it, as long as the gullible keep buying it. And in most cases, it is the left that gobbles this stuff up in the name of the greater good. So far, those screaming the loudest to force others to vaccinate (or criticizing those that don't), usually don't understand the first thing about herd immunity, or what they're talking about. So even though I'm on their side (as I lean towards vaccines), I'm sort of embarassed by the most vocal on my side of the argument. (Similar to atheists: I might be one, but most often, I prefer not to be associated with the vocal and caustic ones that spend most of their energy attacking or mocking people who don't think like them) Extremes There's a huge difference between refusing to get a smallpox vaccine during an outbreak, and running people out of town because they didn't get their Flu shot (or they preferred to skip MMR, and get only mumps/rubella individually instead of in a cocktail). So there's a spectrum here, and that's a nuance that I've rarely seen the anti-anti-Vaxxers concede. Yet, these extremes are the first arguments they bring up, "so if you don't agree with me, you must think that we should never force vaccines". Basically, they're pretending someone refusing their flu shot is the same of rejecting getting smallpox. So I have to preemptively concede the point. If we're in a pandemic and/or a communities survival is at stake, then sure: conscription and forced vaccinations should be tolerated. But most of the things that cause pandemics are the things we're NOT vaccinating for, so the argument about survivability of the community is usually a strawman. And we're NOT talking about those extreme cases, we're often arguing about something far milder. Their unwillingness to accept that reality, shows who is more extreme. The biggest fight is over cocktail vaccinations of non-lethal diseases (like MMR). And if you're in one of the healthiest places in the world, and someone is home schooling their kids? I think the choice for getting their MMR shot should probably be theirs (not the states) -- even if I would give it to my kids. If you don't have liberty over what you stick in your body, then where the hell do civil rights begin? The same on the other side. I don't believe that vaccines cause autism. You don't have the right to both live in my neighborhood and ____ I hear this argument often used against anti-vaxxers, "you're endangering my kids, so I have the right to hold you down and inject you with small amounts of toxic substances, for my own good". But fill in the blank with any of the following: be black, Jewish, disagree with me on smoking, have guns, not take vaccines, and so on? That shows the root of the problem: intolerance is intolerance. What if the anti-anti-vaxxers are wrong? And that's the root of the problem, telling others what to do, based on a false understanding of the relative risks, science/medicine. Should we let popular ignorance win out of unpopular science? Y/N. Progressivism/socialism/collectivism murdered >100M people last century? Far more than anti-vaxxers ever did. So relative risks: should we stop tolerating progressive/socialist/communists and force THEM out of communities since historically they've been a greater threat to me and my kids than a measles outbreak in the last century? Or should we learn that other people's opinions have risks to us, but we have to tolerate them, if we expect them to tolerate ours? Where is the threshold of risk before we start legislating their liberty away? If not getting your state mandated vaccine meets that threshold, then the religion of pro-statism (in the form of communism, socialism or progressivism) is certainly responsible for more deaths last century and thus is the greater risk. So be careful what you wish for, when you decide to start empowering the state to take away our liberties for the greater good (especially based on political ideology, like immunization). People should get vaccinated. People should understand that not being vaccinated isn't that big a threat (especially for most of the things we are talking about). You're more likely to die from bad genetics, poor diet or poor exercise habits... So if you can regulate them based on minor vaccines in a non outbreak situation, then certainly they can force a one size fits all diet, exercise or breeding program on you? Right? If society can show a serious demonstrable threat to others, then fine -- let them do that BEFORE encroaching on my rights. So I have the same standard as free speech -- the speech has to be causing immediate danger to others, before it can be encroached on. At that threshold, I get it. Before it, we should err on the side of individual. If we blow all our silver bullets on forcing people on the little things, I think they'll be MORE reticent and distrusting on the big/important ones. It's one of the reasons I almost never lie -- I want to be an honest and trustworthy person, so if I really need to lie, I have people's trust (I can make it count). Thus I'm more honest, just in case. Whereas if I lied all the time, I would have blown all my capital and credibility for when I really need it. ;-) Ebola missionaries should be brought into out midst is inane. Just not worth the risk. No matter how careful we think we are. Where's the problem? Where there are problem areas is not the rich areas (or those getting personal exemptions). They're the inland/aggriculture communities that have a bigger problem because of illegal aliens/migrant workers, and their kids and visitors (or they visit countries) that have outbreaks. So if you truly care about vaccination rates and outbreaks/herd-immunity, you should be a strong proponent of stopping illegal immigration. Those that don't, are not morally consistent (they don't care about what they think they do, or say they do). Measles is closest (still over the top end of herd immunity in most areas). But if you break it down by area, there are areas where we're either well above, or well below (a good 10%-40% below) -- and it's not the 1-3% of personal/religious belief exemptions (home schoolers, etc) that are the actual problem. It's immigrant pockets. If the left could force vaccinate every one of the personal exemptions (all home schoolers, etc), it would still not get anywhere near getting us over the HIT in areas that have problems. Thus you're not going to fix that by taking away the personal exemption (which is what's getting attacked by the most vocal anti-anti-vaxxers). The real problem is illegals/migrants, according to the numbers -- but if you advocated forcing all immigrants and poor to get vaccinated (to collect any government benefit), the same people cheerleading attacking the person exemption crowd, would scream about civil rights of the minorities and poor. Which is fine, I'm not for forcing either of them -- but the hypocrisy of that position should be pointed out. Who are the anti-vaxxers, and why? Anti-vaxxers are a large and diverse group (a few percent of 300M is still 9M people). And it's hard to generalize, because there's so many different reasons. The movement seems to have taken root a lot more among the left than the right (at least the celebrity anti-Vaxxers), like: Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy, Alicia Silverstone, Mayim Bialik, Charlie Sheen, Jim Carrey, Kristin Cavallari, Holly Robinson Peete, Aidan Quinn, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Lisa Bonet, and so on. Lots of vocal anti-vaxxers on that side of the aisle, few on the other, but the Press has often played it off as a right wing anti-science phenom. But the things I've read, seem to imply some common threads, like: Anti-Cocktail (or dislike specific vaccines) People that care, seem to dislike the reactions and complication rates of the cocktail vaccinations that caused major problems (like in Japan). Many are not against ALL vaccines, they just have a problem with one, or one cocktail. Bureaucracies don't get nuances -- you're either in full compliance with the state mandates, or you're a rebel. So these discriminatory vaxxers, are labelled the same as the others. Which shows the ignorance of the bigotry of those that lump them with the others. Why do they think this? We know that the reaction rates are lower with the individual immunizations. So why not allow separate vaccinations (like many other countries do), instead of requiring the cocktails? That would seem to be the quickest way to get higher immunization rates on key diseases from the personal exemption crowd. But again, the anti-anti-vaxxers, don't want to give an inch, even when the complaints are valid. Conclusion When I've pointed some of these facts out, I've had friends that ranted I was an anti-vaxxer (ignoring the points I made to the contrary). To me that reflected more on their biases, bigotries and putting emotions above reading comprehension. I support vaccinations, and got all mine, and would give them to my kids. I think the benefits outweigh the risks, and the autism link is weak and unproven to me. But there's a LOT more complexity and nuance, and I'm not ready to force my views on everyone else. If there's a hot outbreak of a highly lethal strain of anything, I get that mass vaccination is the best way to protect a society. And I would suspend my individual liberty over group risk in those cases. But that's not what most are talking about. And if they're preaching the benefits a mass vaccinations when diseases aren't running rampant, and putting the state's powers over individuals in that case, with little proven benefits, then it's not about vaccines and public health, but politics and statism.

Conclusion

Following the Science means to do the opposite of what Democrats said, every step of the way:

• COVID Immunity and mutation rate - There's some dispute on the Coronavirus mutation rate. The basics are it is an RNA type virus, that's twice as complex and mutates at half the rate of the seasonal flu. Combined, that's an effective mutation rate at 1/4th the Flu. Is that slow enough that we can create vaccines? We should have known. We didn't. We call that willfully ignorant. (Or paid off).
• COVID Models - There were multiple models used to scare the rubes on what we had to worry about with the COVID Pandemic. They were terribad. They either under-estimated or over-estimated the dead. But even when they got close, they got the time scale to get those deaths off by orders of magnitude (and would have been more wrong, if the predicted the Vaccines, but wrong on that as well).
• COVID Studies - Over a dozen Antibody tests (by April 2020) prove that we are completely being lied to about the denominator (how many total cases there are), which inflates the death rate and scares people unnecessarily. The continuing lockdown is anti-science, senseless, and done for a political agenda.
• COVID Testing - When trying to contain a disease break-out, testing matters. Once the disease is in the general population (March 2020), contact tracing and controls are impractical, testing is just trend tracking in communities. So those claiming we couldn't open until we had millions of tests were lying to keep us locked down. That wasn't science, that was fascism.
• COVID Therapeutics - There are also many existing drugs that offer some help with COVID. A few include: Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, Ivermectin, Calquence, Antibody therapy
• COVID Treatment - There are a lot of positives for various treatments around COVID...
• COVID Vaccines - Failures on vaccines; (1) it wouldn't get released in 2020 (2) the virus wouldn't out mutate the vaccine / vaccines would lear to zero COVID (3) there wouldn't be complications and the risks were low so everyone should take it (4) we should mandate everyone get it, incuding children (ignore risks/cohorts).
• COVID/Science - Following the science often means do the opposite of what the DNC and their media and 3 letter agencies are telling you to. It is remaining skeptical, questioning, and looking at both sides of what you are being told. Follow the evidence, not the politics., The left wants less free choice for most people, most of the time, unless it furthers a leftist cause du jour. In this case, the NYT and NY Legislature wants to allow kids to get COVID vaccines, in order to help us get to herd immunity levels that they pulled out of their asses.
• Herd Immunity - Herd immunity means that enough people have had a disease, that the contagion can't spread and dies out. (Basically the effective R0, or how many people each person with the disease passes it on to, is less than 1 other person). This belief leads to misconceptions. This article addresses those.
• Parental Consent for Vaccines - The left wants less free choice for most people, most of the time, unless it furthers a leftist cause du jour. In this case, the NYT and NY Legislature wants to allow kids to get COVID vaccines, in order to help us get to herd immunity levels that they pulled out of their asses.
• Reaction to COVID - The Nocebo Effect (fear/stress/uncertainty) kills. Democrats maximized that "opportunity" for money, power and political gain, without regard to the costs. Don't talk about compassion, if you are willing to hurt or kill for a political agenda.
• Vaccines and Anti-Vaxxers - Both sides can be preachy and wrong. While I'm no anti-Vaxxer (I've gotten all mine, I don't think vaccines are the cause of autism, and I would get them for my imaginary kids), I find the anti-Vax crowd has points that the anti-anti-vax crowd is either unwilling or incapable of understanding (their arguments are more focused around the cult of authority).

---

🔗 More

New York Times A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased, occasionally good content.

COVID COVID-19 (for COrona VIrus Disease circa 2019 or SARS-CoV-2) was a pandemic/opportunity for the left to seize liberty/power from the masses.

COVID COVID-19 (for COrona VIrus Disease circa 2019 or SARS-CoV-2) was a pandemic/opportunity for the left to seize liberty/power from the masses.

Science There's what the politicians call science, then there's the real science. This is the science on COVID., Leftists want to eliminate parental consent for children to get COVID vaccine

🔗 Links

• https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/massive-145-country-study-shows-sharp-increase-transmission-death-introduction-covid-vaccines/

Tags: NYT  COVID  COVID/all  COVID/Science