« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Cactus Flower...

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 01 Apr 22 11:00 AM | 53 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 45196 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 45187 by fizzy)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I'd recommend spending a little time on international comparisons. That way you can evade a little bit your scepticism about the truthfulness and openness of the US administration, which seems to hamper your willingness to address those views of the medical establishment that are different from your own. So instead you dismiss them as untrustworthy (because Fauci, the rich or whatever) whenever they appear in your argument. That's just an observation, not intending to be rude. But you can fix it a bit by looking abroad.

The UK-US comparison is worth a look. The UK programme started a wee bit earlier and resulted in a materially higher number of vaccinated people. Our death rates diverged during Delta, and certainly it looks like the cause of the divergence was the vaccination programme. Where before Delta the US had a slightly lower death rate per capita, after, the UK mortality rate is about 20% less. Israel isn't such a useful comparison as they went before everyone else and their population isn't very diverse.

Can't argue omicron because the data is a bit more murky.

Of course, we English may all develop six inch noses, or other more scary conditions, as a result of the programme. I don't dismiss this point by any means.

Novavax may prove to be better. I am not qualified to compare. But it also matters that it wasn't available when we might have chosen it instead of mRNA vaccines. Our AZ vaccine was not mRNA, as you noted, and it was used broadly at first.

I also take your point that you can certainly argue that vaccinating lower risk age groups was a mistake due to the unknowns you have previously mentioned. And you can also argue reasonably that it was a good idea, given the other risks that were reduced or expunged in more vulnerable groups (the immune-compromised, the podgy, the pigmenty and the aged). It kinda depends on which common goods you focus on. Morality is always like that.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Cactus Flower...
By: fizzy
in ALEA
Thu, 31 Mar 22 9:11 PM
Msg. 45187 of 54959

"Does your way of thinking about things have a different explanation than what seems the obvious one: that higher shot rates produce lower death rates, at least in the short run?"

I'm not anywhere near up to speed on how things are in the UK. I DO know that a good portion of the better statistical information, much of it hinting that something wasn't right with the vaccine program, and in particular with adverse effects, came from the UK (kudos to your statisticians for that!) Even better data came from Israel, where the vax rates were even higher.

(keep in mind, also, the vaccine type preferences varied between countries. I believe in Israel it was almost entirely Pfizer; I believe UK was more mixed?)


In my just-prior post (which came out a minute ago) I mentioned that the vaccines seemed to reduce both deaths and symptoms against the orignal variant. Not so much against later variants. And probably not at all with Omicron. The data is really compromised /biased to support vaccines, though (that's in support of the big money political interests). But it makes sense ... and I believe the early results were impressive on both counts.

But that is NOT a valid way of looking at things, unless one (the system) is
(1) ONLY short term oriented,
(2) only hyper-focussed on direct Covid deaths and damage.
(3)ONLY concerned about the most "at risk" cohort.


#3 Deserve to be looked at critically? Since WHEN did it become in HUMANITIES best interest to say, effectively,

"SCREW the healthy; the children; the young in general!

SCREW them all! Screw the next generation! Screw those who have invested their lives in anything but the best interests of the retired and feeble!

"THE MANY NEED TO BE SACRIFIED TO THE FEW! AND TO THE STATE!"

ONLY those who have only a few years left, who are deadly sick already or already in retirement, must be protected at all costs! Those who have most of the money, who have already had a long life, already had their chance to build something or have a life, MUST BE PROTECTED AT *ALL* COSTS!

"From each, according to their ability" (whether they want to contribute to the project or not) "...to each, according to their need!" If I read your intro correctly, you probably recognize the allusion -- and probably don't agree with it in general.

Why should we make an exception to our principles, and the best interests of humanity and the next generation, because it is you and I who now have the need, and perhaps not as much life ahead of us -- in any case -- as we have already had?


I think that is what you are asking. And I trust you already knew the answer.

To be fair all around, at the BEGINNING Covid-19 was a complete unknown -- at least to most of us, but apparently not to Moderna and Fauci, if the trail of breadcrumbs means anything.

But by the time the vaccines were ready for rollout, in late 2020, THAT WAS NO LONGER TRUE:

By late 2020, a VAST amount was known about Covid-19:

(1) It was known that Covid-19 ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY killed those over 80 and the obese. And, if you were over 80 AND obese, you were really at risk..BUT you would be at super high risk to normal flu, as well, and probably only had a few years to live in the best of cases.

(2) Those under 30 were not statistically at risk. They had VASTLY more risk from an auto accident than from Covid-19. Children under 20? They had, as a group, ZERO risk of death and little risk of long term consequences from Covid -- and massive risk from having their childhood and education destroyed.

(3) There were LOTS of treatments that had established themselves as statistically beneficial, especially when used with common sense and in combination, on outcomes IN THE E.R.

And even workable prophylaxis was pretty well known -- in restricted circles.

BUT the "Emergency Use Authorization", at least in the US, REQUIRED THAT THEIR BE *NO* "known" TREATMENT.

And the money and the political power rewarded, handsomely, the "*NO* known treatment",

And, so, almost everyone died -- and certainly the overwhelming majority of those who paid the most -- died or suffered needlessly.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. THE FEW RICH. THE FEW POLITICALLY CONNECTED. THE FEW ALREADY NEAR THE END OF THEIR LIVES.

This was no "Black Plague", killing 1/3+ of the population within days of diagnosis, with no treatment. It NEVER justified the loss of freedoms for the many, nor the suppression of early treatments, nor the engorgement of the rick and powerful.

It is probably the most shameful and expensive clown show in human history. And most people still haven't a clue.

--
Heh. I'm going to stop ranting now! I was supposed to be doing some work this AM! :-)


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next