nett wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:27 pm
It seems at this point, it would have been much more in the interest of the common good to allow COVID to spread, and natural immunity to develop. In hindsight we know natural immunity lasts longer, against more strains, and is more protective than vaccination.
.. I just wanted to touch on this point.
In hindsight, yes, but I openly admit that this was very cloudy early on. I think after 6 months to a year in, this was known, but the vaccines looked so good they kept pushing them thinking they were going to be much more effective. They were hopeful, but wrong. After 1 year, I personally think there has been a determined attempt to hide this fact and to hide the fact that early treatment is much more effective.
They just can't let go of their view that vaccines are better.
if i recall, the central goal was to “spread out” infections, to prevent massive overwhelming of hospitals+resources (??) .. as happened in Italy and NYC. the expectation was that everyone would eventually contract it. i suppose it still is.
nett wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:27 pm
It seems at this point, it would have been much more in the interest of the common good to allow COVID to spread, and natural immunity to develop. In hindsight we know natural immunity lasts longer, against more strains, and is more protective than vaccination.
While I hope Ken responds, I just wanted to touch on this point. In hindsight, yes, but I openly admit that this was very cloudy early on. I think after 6 months to a year in, this was known, but the vaccines looked so good they kept pushing them thinking they were going to be much more effective. They were hopeful, but wrong. After 1 year, I personally think there has been a determined attempt to hide this fact and to hide the fact that early treatment is much more effective. They just can't let go of their view that vaccines are better.
Yes I agree, I was very much on the cautious side early on, we self-quarantined for longer than we should have, and treated some people unfairly in retrospect.
Even early on, when the vaccines looked good, there were very credible experts warning about exactly what we're seeing now. It seems that upper respiratory viruses mutate too quickly for our current vaccine technology, and probably always will. mRNA vaccines have a whole host of other problems. COVID wasn't a good candidate to try out an experimental technology that has never worked in a long term trial.
nett wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:27 pm
It seems at this point, it would have been much more in the interest of the common good to allow COVID to spread, and natural immunity to develop. In hindsight we know natural immunity lasts longer, against more strains, and is more protective than vaccination.
While I hope Ken responds, I just wanted to touch on this point. In hindsight, yes, but I openly admit that this was very cloudy early on. I think after 6 months to a year in, this was known, but the vaccines looked so good they kept pushing them thinking they were going to be much more effective. They were hopeful, but wrong. After 1 year, I personally think there has been a determined attempt to hide this fact and to hide the fact that early treatment is much more effective. They just can't let go of their view that vaccines are better.
Yes I agree, I was very much on the cautious side early on, we self-quarantined for longer than we should have, and treated some people unfairly in retrospect.
Even early on, when the vaccines looked good, there were very credible experts warning about exactly what we're seeing now. It seems that upper respiratory viruses mutate too quickly for our current vaccine technology, and probably always will. mRNA vaccines have a whole host of other problems. COVID wasn't a good candidate to try out an experimental technology that has never worked in a long term trial.
I'm not sure what you want me to say.
We can do a little math. The Covid case fatality rate in the US prior to widespread vaccinations was about 1.8%.
If all 328 million people in the US were unvaccinated and caught Covid that would be a death toll of 5.9 million people in contrast to the current 648,000 deaths. It would have meant the complete collapse of the heath care system if there were no other mitigation measures to control the spread and tens of millions of Americans suffering long hospital stays and millions suffering long-term effects (long Covid).
On a world-wide basis with no vaccines or other mitigation measures we would be talking about a death toll of approximately 134 million people. That would rank it up there with the black death which killed between 75 and 200 million or about 50% of the population of Europe.
I must say it astonishes me that people would want to just give up and not fight this pandemic with all the resources at our disposal.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
While I hope Ken responds, I just wanted to touch on this point. In hindsight, yes, but I openly admit that this was very cloudy early on. I think after 6 months to a year in, this was known, but the vaccines looked so good they kept pushing them thinking they were going to be much more effective. They were hopeful, but wrong. After 1 year, I personally think there has been a determined attempt to hide this fact and to hide the fact that early treatment is much more effective. They just can't let go of their view that vaccines are better.
Yes I agree, I was very much on the cautious side early on, we self-quarantined for longer than we should have, and treated some people unfairly in retrospect.
Even early on, when the vaccines looked good, there were very credible experts warning about exactly what we're seeing now. It seems that upper respiratory viruses mutate too quickly for our current vaccine technology, and probably always will. mRNA vaccines have a whole host of other problems. COVID wasn't a good candidate to try out an experimental technology that has never worked in a long term trial.
I'm not sure what you want me to say.
We can do a little math. The Covid case fatality rate in the US prior to widespread vaccinations was about 1.8%.
If all 328 million people in the US were unvaccinated and caught Covid that would be a death toll of 5.9 million people in contrast to the current 648,000 deaths. It would have meant the complete collapse of the heath care system if there were no other mitigation measures to control the spread and tens of millions of Americans suffering long hospital stays and millions suffering long-term effects (long Covid).
On a world-wide basis with no vaccines or other mitigation measures we would be talking about a death toll of approximately 134 million people. That would rank it up there with the black death which killed between 75 and 200 million or about 50% of the population of Europe.
I must say it astonishes me that people would want to just give up and not fight this pandemic with all the resources at our disposal.
It's not realistic to assume that 100% of the population would catch it all in one year, and it's even less realistic to assume that the 1.8% death rate (which is wrong, the CDC says .7% IFR, the pharma studies says .05% IFR) would continue to hold true. Natural selection mean that respiratory viruses lose their virulence as they gain contagiousness, which has held true for COVID. Despite early reports, the recent strains have not been all that deadly.
Do you want to talk about the realistic possibilities I posted, or just fear monger? I'd prefer to have a reality based discussion.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:03 pm
We can do a little math. The Covid case fatality rate in the US prior to widespread vaccinations was about 1.8%.
If all 328 million people in the US were unvaccinated and caught Covid that would be a death toll of 5.9 million people in contrast to the current 648,000 deaths. It would have meant the complete collapse of the heath care system if there were no other mitigation measures to control the spread and tens of millions of Americans suffering long hospital stays and millions suffering long-term effects (long Covid).
It's not realistic to assume that 100% of the population would catch it all in one year, and it's even less realistic to assume that the 1.8% death rate (which is wrong, the CDC says .7% IFR, the pharma studies says .05% IFR) would continue to hold true. Natural selection mean that respiratory viruses lose their virulence as they gain contagiousness, which has held true for COVID. Despite early reports, the recent strains have not been all that deadly.
Wouldn't it also be the case that the immunocompromised would catch it first and be more likely to die, meaning that the fatality rate would fall naturally over time for that reason as well?
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:03 pm
We can do a little math. The Covid case fatality rate in the US prior to widespread vaccinations was about 1.8%.
If all 328 million people in the US were unvaccinated and caught Covid that would be a death toll of 5.9 million people in contrast to the current 648,000 deaths. It would have meant the complete collapse of the heath care system if there were no other mitigation measures to control the spread and tens of millions of Americans suffering long hospital stays and millions suffering long-term effects (long Covid).
It's not realistic to assume that 100% of the population would catch it all in one year, and it's even less realistic to assume that the 1.8% death rate (which is wrong, the CDC says .7% IFR, the pharma studies says .05% IFR) would continue to hold true. Natural selection mean that respiratory viruses lose their virulence as they gain contagiousness, which has held true for COVID. Despite early reports, the recent strains have not been all that deadly.
Wouldn't it also be the case that the immunocompromised would catch it first and be more likely to die, meaning that the fatality rate would fall naturally over time for that reason as well?
That's a good point. It's also likely that many people have natural immunity without realizing it. low dose consistent exposure can build powerful immunity without ever needing to have symptoms.
The 100% injection scenario is just not a thing. At this point, the flu is a good comparison.
An update from Alberta; the government website discloses vaccine outcomes at different levels according age group, additional conditions and vaccine status (full vs partial vs non). I give them high marks for transparency.
According to the most recent update, over the past 120 days fully and partially vaccinated persons account for 40% of people in ICU for Covid and 42% of Covid mortality. Since about 79% of the 12+ population is fully or partially vaccinated, that indicates that vaccine efficacy in terms of severe outcomes has dropped to about 50%.
Since the beginning of the 120 day period falls on a date when only 7% of eligible Albertans were fully vaccinated and therefore the proportion of unvaccinated victims would have been near 100%, I surmise that:
1) The half life of the vaccines is < 4 months and
2) The vaccinated share of ICU admissions and Covid mortality is now significantly higher than 40%.
Israel is looking more and more like an accurate predictor of what we will see in the next few months.
I think you are mis-reading the Alberta Covid data. The most relevant data table to explore your hypothesis is Table 7 which breaks the data down by age. It is only in the 80+ age category that hospitalization rates start to climb into the 20% or higher for vaccinated individuals and that population (80+) is almost 100% vaccinated. So it is mostly really really old people with likely compromised immune systems and co-morbidities, not younger people that are experiencing the bulk of break-through infections.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
