The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

For philosophical reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic. How can philosophy help us to understand it, to combat it and to survive it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RG1
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

Dontaskme wrote:Vaccinating people will not work to combat coronaviruses. As we've already seen with the more commonal garden flu vaccines. Viruses will just get more and more virulent and become more and more of a danger to their host as they continue to evolve. We'll reach a point where we will be vaccinating ourselves non-stop for ever. A Stupid and expensive idea, and toxic for the body.
Good Point. I would also add that the continued masking (and social distancing) of a vaccinated person 1) prevents that person from participating in (and thereby us from ever achieving) herd immunity, and 2) allows the virus to perpetually grow and mutate into potentially more deadlier variants.

Vaccinations are useless if we keep masking those that have been vaccinated. We can't develop new vaccines at a faster rate then we are allowing the virus to mutate.

Contrary to the government "misinformation" campaign, masking and social distancing does not stop or slow down the further growth and mutations of this virus. The ONLY solution is herd immunity, which we are foolishly preventing by adhering to bad science and government "misinformation".

Dontaskme wrote:There really is no hope or cure for sentient life except death. No one gets out of this virus and bacterial infested planet alive.
Correct.

Dontaskme wrote:Just stop the fight and die gracefully. All life forms are basically just parasitic gouls consuming everything in their path. Including the human organism, especially the human organism.

We're all going to die, so why waste money and resources on flogging dead horses, it's an expense that is just not worth paying.
But maybe, to some, flogging dead horses may be what they live for.

Dontaskme wrote:IMHO ...the only good thing about being alive is knowing it will end. No one has to agree with my views of course, each to their own, thoughts about living, what ever gets you through the day or works for you is what really matters.
True, though from my view, while I'm alive, I'm gonna live like hell. Since, ain't none of us getting out of here alive, we might as well go down swinging (and raising hell). ...but then again, what choice do I have anyways? ...everything I do, and think, and feel is in reality just "given" to (and imposed on) me, ...so, okay I'm just trying to enjoy riding the train I've been put on, until it goes over the cliff.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by Dontaskme »

RG1 wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:56 pm
Dontaskme wrote:Vaccinating people will not work to combat coronaviruses. As we've already seen with the more commonal garden flu vaccines. Viruses will just get more and more virulent and become more and more of a danger to their host as they continue to evolve. We'll reach a point where we will be vaccinating ourselves non-stop for ever. A Stupid and expensive idea, and toxic for the body.
Good Point. I would also add that the continued masking (and social distancing) of a vaccinated person 1) prevents that person from participating in (and thereby us from ever achieving) herd immunity, and 2) allows the virus to perpetually grow and mutate into potentially more deadlier variants.

Vaccinations are useless if we keep masking those that have been vaccinated. We can't develop new vaccines at a faster rate then we are allowing the virus to mutate.

Contrary to the government "misinformation" campaign, masking and social distancing does not stop or slow down the further growth and mutations of this virus. The ONLY solution is herd immunity, which we are foolishly preventing by adhering to bad science and government "misinformation".
I agree with this.

Also, I have a hunch that scientists and governments and Billionairs are colluding with each other as to the best ways to deal with the problems of migration and overpopulation, and dwindling food sources. Some of the things on their agenda, like all this social distancing and mask wearing will be seen and known as a way to implement ''obedience training'' of the general population.. in other words, more mind control,more programming and more brainwashing, and done in a such a covert way so as to get the people to think everything is normal so they don't figure out what's actually going on. But all part of natures, evolutions plan anyway, so it's all pretty much normal.
Dontaskme wrote:Just stop the fight and die gracefully. All life forms are basically just parasitic gouls consuming everything in their path. Including the human organism, especially the human organism.

We're all going to die, so why waste money and resources on flogging dead horses, it's an expense that is just not worth paying.
RG1 wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:56 pmBut maybe, to some, flogging dead horses may be what they live for.
Yes, it's a bit like drug addiction, they like the highs, and are willing to do anything just to feed a desire for the high.


RG1 wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:56 pmTrue, though from my view, while I'm alive, I'm gonna live like hell. Since, ain't none of us getting out of here alive, we might as well go down swinging (and raising hell). ...but then again, what choice do I have anyways? ...everything I do, and think, and feel is in reality just "given" to (and imposed on) me, ...so, okay I'm just trying to enjoy riding the train I've been put on, until it goes over the cliff.
Haha! lovely, you say exactly as I see it too. :D what choice did we ever have, might as well go out the way we came in, with a bang :wink:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10141
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by henry quirk »

RG1 wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:27 pm
henry quirk wrote: This is fascinating data from the CDC. It seems the country was conducting over 2 million tests per day leading up to the presidential election and now that Dementia Joe is in the White House, they are only doing 1.3 million tests per day, a 35% reduction. Why would that be the case? Didn’t Basement Biden say they would be ramping up testing?

The day Sleepy Joe took office, the WHO announced that the PCR levels on testing should be reduced in order to capture less false positives. Shockingly, daily cases have plunged from 250,000 per day to 66,000 per day, a 70% decline since China Joe took office. It’s a freaking miracle and we owe it all to Emperor Gates, the Big Pharma jab, that troll Fauci, and of course lockdowns and masks. All hail our glorious leaders.

Of course we should ignore the data showing the exact same trend in Sweden and in states that didn’t lockdown or require masks. And how dare you question the narrative or speculate that tests and cases were ramped up to dispose of Trump, as part of the Plan. That makes you a white supremacist insurrection supporting Nazi. -some net wag
So true, good stuff Henry!
We've reached the half a million mark here in the U.S.(which is to say, half a million folks died from cancer, heart attack, influenza, gunshot, drowning, and on and on, while -- perhaps -- being infected with beer virus).

We've been, are being, hoodwinked.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:03 am
We've been, are being, hoodwinked.
I suppose we were due another good hoodwinking session. Humans have been at it since time immemorial.

Nothing changes when it comes to human activity. For me, the only good thing about being a human being is knowing I will end. :D

Animals don't have that luxury of knowing, they are doomed to live in a constant state of fight or flight fear based existence, poor things.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10141
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by henry quirk »

https://www.aier.org/article/covid-case ... ike-rocks/

The whole piece is good, but this stands out...

Death data seems more decisively accurate but there are reporting lags that can delay accuracy by many weeks. In addition, there is an error term (how large?) due to misclassification. The CDC itself has made it clear that only in 6% of death cases is SARS-CoV-2 mentioned as the only cause. Those are the easy ones to classify. After that, it gets more complicated. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 3.8 additional conditions or causes per death,” says the CDC. Sorting all this out will require years of work in looking at death certificates and weighing factors.

As I say, have been sayin' for a long time: dyin' with beer virus, not from beer virus.

Hoodwinked, hard.
mickthinks
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

As I say, have been sayin' for a long time: dyin' with beer virus, not from beer virus. Hoodwinked, hard.

Are you qualified to pronounce that kind of judgement, Henry?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10141
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by henry quirk »

mickthinks wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:35 pm As I say, have been sayin' for a long time: dyin' with beer virus, not from beer virus. Hoodwinked, hard.

Are you qualified to pronounce that kind of judgement, Henry?
Qualified to chime in with an opinion?

Absolutely.

That you mind it or not is not my business.
mickthinks
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

We have information and advice from people who are qualified and experienced in matters concerning infectious diseases and epidemics, and we have you chiming in with your unqualified opinion that they are wrong, Henry.

That just about clears it up.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10141
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by henry quirk »

mickthinks wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:02 pm We have information and advice from people who are qualified and experienced in matters concerning infectious diseases and epidemics, and we have you chiming in with your unqualified opinion that they are wrong, Henry.

That just about clears it up.
👍
mickthinks
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

RG1

Herd immunity works because immune people STOP the transmission of the virus.
No, that's not how it works.

Immune people break vectors (stop the transmission) of the virus to a neighboring vulnerable person
No, they don't.

Herd immunity works by reducing the number of potentially infectious contacts between infectious and infectable people. This can be done by reducing the number of contacts between everyone (social distancing), targetted reduction of infected or likely-infected people by self-isolation and quarantine, or by reducing the proportion of unprotected people in the community by vaccination or other means. They all have the potential to control and even eliminate the virus.

Imagine a social gathering of 100 people, of whom 10 are spreading an infectious virus. Suppose this virus is so infectious that each of them infects 2 others at the party. The result is 20 new cases of infection. This represents an R of 2
  • Now imagine a similar party in which all the guests are wearing masks and keeping 2m apart. The result is some carriers infect 1 or more other people and some don't infect anyone. 5 new cases of infection. This represents an R of 0.5
  • Now imagine a similar party in which 75% of the uninfected guests are vaccinated. The result is some carriers infect 1 or more other people and some don't infect anyone. 5 new cases. This represents an R of 0.5
  • Now suppose everyone was following some fairly strict lockdown rules. The party doesn't happen. 0 new cases. This represents an R of 0
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

mickthinks wrote:Herd immunity works by reducing the number of potentially infectious contacts between infectious and infectable people. This can be done by reducing the number of contacts between everyone (social distancing), targetted reduction of infected or likely-infected people by self-isolation and quarantine, or by reducing the proportion of unprotected people in the community by vaccination or other means. They all have the potential to control and even eliminate the virus.

Imagine a social gathering of 100 people, of whom 10 are spreading an infectious virus. Suppose this virus is so infectious that each of them infects 2 others at the party. The result is 20 new cases of infection. This represents an R of 2

Now imagine a similar party in which all the guests are wearing masks and keeping 2m apart. The result is some carriers infect 1 or more other people and some don't infect anyone. 5 new cases of infection. This represents an R of 0.5

Now imagine a similar party in which 75% of the uninfected guests are vaccinated. The result is some carriers infect 1 or more other people and some don't infect anyone. 5 new cases. This represents an R of 0.5

Now suppose everyone was following some fairly strict lockdown rules. The party doesn't happen. 0 new cases. This represents an R of 0
This is only showing the protective effects of "social distancing", not of "herd immunity". The protective effects of "social distancing" is based on increasing the vector distance (increasing viral transmission length) between vulnerable people and infected people, whereas "herd immunity" is based on saturating a given population with immune people. Two different mechanisms with two different sets of people.

mickthinks wrote:Now imagine a similar party in which 75% of the uninfected guests are vaccinated. The result is some carriers infect 1 or more other people and some don't infect anyone. 5 new cases. This represents an R of 0.5
So according to your belief, we could instead of vaccinating these 75 people, just remove these 75 people completely from the party, and we would still get the same result, ...right?

This proves that this is not herd immunity, because if we removed these 75 people from the party then we would be left with [0% immune people -to- 100% all others], but yet, according to science (and assuming a covid R0 value of 4), we need a saturation of [75% immune people -to- 25% all others] to reach herd immunity.

To help better understand how the protective effect of "herd immunity" works, imagine a herd of 100 people equally spread apart in a given environment (e.g. a large room). Let's assume the R0 value of covid is 4.0. So according to the threshold value of herd immunity equation T=1-(1/R0), all we need to do is vaccinate 75 of these 100 people and we will achieve herd immunity protection to the entire herd. The protection is not from increasing vector distances (social distancing), but by stopping the virus transmission dead in its tracks. The virus stops and cannot pass or transmit past an immune person. Any virus that encounters an immune person is a dead virus; it is STOPPED dead in its tracks. Without an immune person there, there would be nothing to STOP the transmission. "Increasing the distance" is not as effective in stopping the transmission as "stopping" the virus outright by an immune person.

Herd immunity works by "saturating" a population with immune people who "stop" the further transmission of the virus. Whereas, social distancing works by "distancing" vulnerable people away from infected people.
mickthinks
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

So according to your belief, we could instead of vaccinating these 75 people, just remove these 75 people completely from the party, and we would still get the same result, ...right?

Yes, but not in the way you are imagining, because parties are social events to a greater extent than society at large, and we would assume that in the absence of the 75% vaccinatees, the remaining 25% would spend the entire evening consorting with the virus spreaders. However, what if 75% of the unvaccinated invitees didn't show up either, because they were going to come with their vaccinated friends. Imagine that the remaining handful of unvaccinated and infected guests all left early and went their separate ways because the party was a dud. Yes, we might get the same result or better.

But the party mind-experiment is not intended to be an analogy for society at large, which is a good thing because they have important differences. Not least consider that front-line health workers are being prioritised for the vaccine. This isn't being done with the intention of putting them all immediately on furlough and staffing the clinics and hospital wards with unvaccinated amateurs. In other words, if society is like a cocktail party, it's one where some people are not allowed to turn down their invitations.

No, the party experiment is just meant to illustrate how mass vaccination impacts R and so indirectly protects the unvaccinated without "stopping the virus dead in its tracks".
Post Reply