Coronavirus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that you don't understand how science works even a tiny bit and are caught up in your pseudoscience echochamber because you fell for the bullshit. It's the "virtue signaling" part that ruined your critical thinking. You feel righteous and virtuous to rail against people who do not fall into an arbitrary set of behaviors that you've deemed as correct. Disregarding the science, of course.

You just got a list of research that utterly destroys the lockdown talking points including a model that predicts why lockdowns delay deaths but cause more deaths long term. And your response is "more pseudoscience."

How about a response to the research?

One of your studies was posted literally posted in April well before any real understanding of the virus took place.

And your more deaths are caused by lockdowns doesn't even talk about how or why those deaths tend to happen or how they can avoided by other means then removing lockdowns.

All you do is post some articles ignore context pretend your epidemiologist and ignore all other people.

The WHO still recommends lockdowns for extreme scenarios so does the CDC.

To pretend lockdowns don't prevent the spread is asinine at best :/

All the more reason for cities and states to be consistent about lockdowns and they will or will not allow.

I am loving how the Leftist Ass hats are all ready Decieving themselves into thinking a Vaccine will Some how END the Pandemic and Reopen everything.

It will just be used to usher in the Next Level of Authoritarian Control

Your Dr prescribes Fascism.

Phucking AssHats!

Just heard, so far it's looking like the four major upcoming covid-19 vaccinations all require two separate doses to be effective. This fact will make the anti-vax retards go even more retarded.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just heard, so far it's looking like the four major upcoming covid-19 vaccinations all require two separate doses to be effective. This fact will make the anti-vax retards go even more retarded.

Originally posted by Newjak
Interesting, I hope they still take it. Like even if they want to remain isolated for a few extra months to see the side effects go for it. I just hope they take it.

These retards won't take a single yearly flu shot because they think it's either "government is poisoning us", "government is mind-controlling us", government is tracking us" and/or the reason they're borderline autistic. There's no way they're going to take a single, let alone two Covid-19 vaccination doses.

Originally posted by Newjak
No offense but half of your talking points become obsolete within a week most of the time. Just look at your Covid-19 deaths projections from a month ago. We've already surpassed your total end of year death totals.

One of your studies was posted literally posted in April well before any real understanding of the virus took place.

And your more deaths are caused by lockdowns doesn't even talk about how or why those deaths tend to happen or how they can avoided by other means then removing lockdowns.

All you do is post some articles ignore context pretend your epidemiologist and ignore all other people.

The WHO still recommends lockdowns for extreme scenarios so does the CDC.

To pretend lockdowns don't prevent the spread is asinine at best :/

Originally posted by Robtard
These retards won't take a single yearly flu shot because they think it's either "government is poisoning us", "government is mind-controlling us", government is tracking us" and/or the reason they're borderline autistic. There's no way they're going to take a single, let alone two Covid-19 vaccination doses.

Do you think the government will attempt to make the vaccine mandatory?

I wonder if they even legally could?

Don't think they could, though since a national emergency was declared over the pandemic, as the POTUS is given special powers. Not sure even if then, but maybe.

Good thing Trump made calling a national emergency a pastime.

Do you think people should be forced to take it?

That would make democrats hypocrites, surely they're better than that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you think people should be forced to take it?

Not forced. But they also can't cry if they're restricted in some aspects.

I'm already seeing articles about airlines that intend to require proof of vaccination.

Good.

A wise choice, small cramped space

Originally posted by Newjak
No offense but half of your talking points become obsolete within a week most of the time.

Completely untrue. They would only seem obsolete within a week if you're in denial about the science.

Originally posted by Newjak
Just look at your Covid-19 deaths projections from a month ago. We've already surpassed your total end of year death totals.

You mean from late April. I didn't adjust my model's formulae at all since late April and the last adjustment I made was to the R0 value. My model was more accurate than any other model I am aware of. It was very accurate through the second week of September when it started to no longer keep up with the new deaths. It was leagues beyond IHME's model which had a near daily adjustment in the beginning. Yes, I my model was superior than the model made by all the minds at IHME.

But I covered that multiple times in this thread: highly likely you're just ignoring the facts to support your position because you hate that lock-downs are an unscientific management approach.

You're parroting troll-talking points and it makes my opinion of you greatly decrease by doing such.

Originally posted by Newjak
One of your studies was posted literally posted in April well before any real understanding of the virus took place.

This is untrue. Only complete idiots would think we have no "real understanding" of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of April. Pray tell, what exactly did we not know? Keep in mind, the target of study is lockdown vs. no lockdown and we already had plenty of data by then as multiple countries came out of lockdown. You're committing the anti-science fallacy of dismissing any science that doesn't fit your bias. Again, what specifically did you have a problem with in their modeling of the available data?

Here's what I looked for in a solid study: compared multiple countries with definitive lockdown policies, before and after, using modeling that fits the data with very high confidence in predictive power to the actual data. It also needed to compare similar lockdown policies by country and compare them relative to their own lockdown and unlockdown times (instead of absolute dates). This is exactly what that study did. And other studies did not do this; they compared apples to oranges or only within countries, themselves - invalidating any good analyses that could have come from modeling the already available data.

Keep in mind, almost all of the studies are not predictive studies - these are analyses of the existing data to determine efficacy of policies. The datasets analyzed did not magically change after they completed their analyses - it was almost 100% the same exact data. So if you disagree with it, you have access to the same data. You can complete your own analysis and rejected H1 and accept Null if you can prove it with a statistical analysis/model that fits the data. The fact that you refuse to do so is indicative of the empty and anti-science rhetoric you're posting.

Originally posted by Newjak
And your more deaths are caused by lockdowns doesn't even talk about how or why those deaths tend to happen or how they can avoided by other means then removing lockdowns.

This is a rather funny statement: which study? Specifically, cite the conclusory statements and be specific about which part you disagree with.

Originally posted by Newjak
All you do is post some articles ignore context pretend your epidemiologist and ignore all other people.

Odd. I never did that at all. However, you're the one parading lockdowns as if they are a silver bullet: exactly what you accuse me of doing. The research I've posted is about the glaring evidence of the inefficacy of lockdowns. It functions a mathematical critique of those specific policies. Hardly the talking point you purport.

Originally posted by Newjak
The WHO still recommends lockdowns for extreme scenarios so does the CDC.

Good thing you said that.

The WHO definitely does not recommend lockdowns as a tool to combat the SARS-CoV-2.

"We really do have to learn how to coexist with this virus in the way that doesn't require constant closing down of economies but at the same time in a way that is not associated high levels of suffering and death. It is what we are calling the middle path. The middle path is about being able to hold the virus at bay while keeping economic and social life going. We think it's doable. But we also think that it requires a really high level of organization by governments and a remarkable level of engagement by the people both of which, in some countries, is proving to be quite difficult."

"We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus..."

"The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it."

"Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer..."

"Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition."

Full interview, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8oH7cBxgwE

Tedros himself said:

"We need to reach a sustainable situation where we have adequate control of this virus without shutting down our lives entirely, or lurching from lockdown to lockdown — which has a hugely detrimental impact on societies..."

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---13-july-2020

I highly doubt you're interested in what the WHO has to say on the topic because you're parroting talking points from early March (before we had solid science to measure how effective lockdowns were).

Originally posted by Newjak
To pretend lockdowns don't prevent the spread is asinine at best :/

And statements like these are as about as much anti-science as it can get. Update your positions based on the science. Stop sticking to outdated and disproven policies. Divorce yourself from entrenched positions like these.

The lockdowns were only ever meant as a temporary measure, never as a solution It was a '15 days to flatten the curve' suggestion and even that was not effective as research shows after those lockdowns lifted.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just heard, so far it's looking like the four major upcoming covid-19 vaccinations all require two separate doses to be effective. This fact will make the anti-vax retards go even more retarded.

The mRNA vaccine appears to be innovative as well as highly effective.

The payload it delivers, encapsulated in a lipid carrier molecule so it can make it into the cells, delivers an mRNA payload to the host cells so the host cells have the instructions they needs to manufacture the appropriate antibodies that can attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In addition, it modulates the production of two kinds of T-Cells: CD4+ and CD8+. This method is similar to previous methods of injecting "deactivated" microbes for the target vector but the issue is, those types do not stimulate the production of those T-Cells, only the antigens. This new method will tackle it from both the antigen and T-Cells immunological vectors.

What I call the "microbial husk" method, where they deliver deactivated microbes so you body can create antibodies, is the angle that Johnson and Johnson were/are taking.

For the FDA to approve these mRNA approaches, it needs at least 50% efficacy. What that exactly means, we don't know. In large human trials such as Phase III trials, this is thousands of people. At that large of a sample size, statistical significance can be quite low. I would assume they (FDA) mean IgG measures but not necessarily T-Cell presence. 50% is a "pretty good" minimum efficacy. However, 3 manufacturers; Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Pfizer; report over 90% efficacy.

Remember, we want to vastly beat the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 which is currently at .23%. If your vaccine kills 1/10,000 people (.01%) and your IFR is .27%, that's a lot of lives saved (however, vaccines are much safer than that). If you're in the vulnerable population, you probably would think the risk is worth it so you can get back to your life. If you're not, very healthy, and young, getting the vaccine might less advisable. I'd say the "antibody" test can be used as the goal is to make it where the majority of the population can produce or currently has the antibodies.

Here is the major outstanding question: is immunity to SARS-CoV-2 similar to immunity Tetanus (7-15 years) or the Poxes (near-lifetime)?

Are there people who thought lockdowns weren't for stalling?

They are all ready getting to go full Mark of the Beast on us.

The only Virus is the Stupidity of Voting Left.