1504 replies to this topic

[zen]

But the 65 million people globally who have had their lives destroyed by developing the incredibly debilitating illness long COVID include lots of young and (previously) healthy people, including children, teenagers, young adults in their 20s.

 

Long COVID strikes the young as well as adults, and strikes people who are brimming with health.  

 

In fact, those aged 35 to 49 are twice as likely to develop long COVID compared to those over 70.

 

See the long COVID age distribution. 

1. How much blame for the above would you place on the people who have engineered the virus?

2. Is there a difference in the long covid cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated population?
    I am asking in the context if the below study:
    https://www.medrxiv....23290893v1.full

"Results COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than in the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, not being “up-to-date” with COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.77; 95% C.I., 0.69-0.86; P-value, <0.001). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after receiving 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine."

3. What is your take on the lack of early treatment for the patients who contracted covid at the beginning of the pandemic, went to the doctor and were told to go back home and come back when, paraphrasing, "their lips turn blue"?

4. Do you think the lack of early treatment protocols contributed to the excess deaths at the beginning of the pandemic?

5. Finally, what is your take on the covid vaccine mandates?
    
 

Edited by zen, 22 July 2023 - 02:09 AM.

[Hip]

1. How much blame for the above would you place on the people who have engineered the virus?

 

An odd question. Not to mention a presumptuous question, to assume SARS-CoV-2 is man-made, when we don't have much evidence either way.

 

 

 

2. Is there a difference in the long covid cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated population?

 

I've pointed out many times in these COVID threads that vaccination reduces your chances of getting long COVID. 

 

But you know how to use Google, right? Just put the words "vaccination long COVID" into Google, and you will get the answer for yourself.

 

 

 

3. What is your take on the lack of early treatment for the patients who contracted covid at the beginning of the pandemic, went to the doctor and were told to go back home and come back when, paraphrasing, "their lips turn blue"?

 

There were no effective treatments available at the beginning of the pandemic, especially none that would reduce the risk of long COVID. 

 

Thus far, apart from the vaccine, the only treatment that has been demonstrated to reduce long COVID risk is metformin. Ivermectin was proven not to reduce the risk of long COVID.

 

 

 

4. Do you think the lack of early treatment protocols contributed to the excess deaths at the beginning of the pandemic?

 

Another odd question. Naturally the excess deaths were caused by the millions of people who died of COVID. Had there been treatments that prevented all this COVID mortality, there would be zero excess deaths.

 

 

 

5. Finally, what is your take on the covid vaccine mandates?

 

I don't see how this question in any way relates to long COVID.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 23 July 2023 - 03:55 AM.

[zen]

...

There were no effective treatments available at the beginning of the pandemic, especially none that would reduce the risk of long COVID. 

 

Thus far, apart from the vaccine, the only treatment that has been demonstrated to reduce long COVID risk is metformin. Ivermectin was proven not to reduce the risk of long COVID.

 

...

There were number of doctor's who have figured out several effective protocols against covid by repurposing already approved and safe drugs.
However, their voices were silenced and their right to prescribe certain medications was either limited or taken away entirely.

Regarding ivermectin, it is not true that it was proven to be ineffective in a reliable and objective way.
One can "prove" anything they want by designing a trial in a certain way. For example by using a incorrect dosage at incorrect stage of a disease, or by using a single drug alone while the same drug actually works when used as a component of a combination therapy, etc.

Here is a short documentary that provides an interesting insight about ivermectin and its use in covid:
https://rumble.com/v...acle-films.html

Edited by zen, 24 July 2023 - 12:21 AM.

[Hip]

There were a number of doctor's who have figured out several effective protocols against covid by repurposing already approved and safe drugs.

 
Not really. Just a lot of hot air from doctors claiming things for which they have no evidence. 

 
Even when you perform full-scale clinical trials on a drug, it is still hard to get evidence for efficacy. Take hydroxychloroquine: touted at the beginning of the pandemic as the saviour of mankind; yet studies showed mixed results, some finding that this drug kills COVID patients quicker, others finding a benefit for COVID. Where the truth lies, nobody knows, even with all these trials.

 

You see, getting to the truth is hard, even with benefit of large clinical trials.

 

So there is no way a single doctor merely observing a few patients in his care can know that a drug helps, when they are not even performing clinical trials.

 

 

One can "prove" anything they want by designing a trial in a certain way. For example by using a incorrect dosage at incorrect stage of a disease, or by using a single drug alone while the same drug actually works when used as a component of a combination therapy, etc.

 

Are you saying then we should not trust researchers that demonstrate a certain drug is effective for COVID in a trial study? Because they are just designing their trial in a certain way so as to make it look like the drug works?

 

If you believe researchers are just out to manipulate the truth according to their desires, then we certainly should not trust doctors or researchers claiming to have evidence of effective treatments for COVID, since these people have vested interests, such as bringing patients to their office, or making a name for themselves.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 24 July 2023 - 12:27 AM.

[zen]

 
Not really. Just a lot of hot air from doctors claiming things for which they have no evidence. 

 
Even when you perform full-scale clinical trials on a drug, it is still hard to get evidence for efficacy. Take hydroxychloroquine: touted at the beginning of the pandemic as the saviour of mankind; yet studies showed mixed results, some finding that this drug kills COVID patients quicker, others finding a benefit for COVID. Where the truth lies, nobody knows, even with all these trials.

 

You see, getting to the truth is hard, even with benefit of large clinical trials.

 

So there is no way a single doctor merely observing a few patients in his care can know that a drug helps, when they are not even performing clinical trials.

 

 

 

Are you saying then we should not trust researchers that demonstrate a certain drug is effective for COVID in a trial study? Because they are just designing their trial in a certain way so as to make it look like the drug works?

 

If you believe researchers are just out to manipulate the truth according to their desires, then we certainly should not trust doctors or researchers claiming to have evidence of effective treatments for COVID, since these people have vested interests, such as bringing patients to their office, or making a name for themselves.

Some of those front line doctors have successfully treated thousands of patients.
Whatever their protocols were this was in my view a much better option than the official approach which was to do nothing and just wait until the patient requires hospitalization.

Also, I am certainly not suggesting that ALL researches commit fraud but it certainly happens often enough to make me question the results at least until it is independently confirmed by another group.
Here are just two quick examples from what one would considered top institutions:
https://www.thelance...1180-6/fulltext
https://stanforddail...least-3-papers/

BTW. Do you recall the initial reports about mRNA covid shots to be ~95% effective against infection and spread?
At some point their effectiveness reached 100%!
https://www.pfizer.c...-and-no-serious
@albertbourla/status/1377618480527257606
"Albert Bourla

@AlbertBourla

 

Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%! "






 

Edited by zen, 24 July 2023 - 01:26 AM.

[pamojja]

 Not really. Just a lot of hot air from doctors claiming things for which they have no evidence.

 

Most parts of the world are different. There most is used against ailments, and mostly what works can be found by a pharmacist of your choice, without having additionally ask and pay a doctor. Over-the-counter, or if otherwise, the pharmacist could also procure the prescription for you.

 

That was how covid was handled in India, untill the Government prohibited the use of commonly used hydrochloriquine and ivermectin against covid. At least in some states of India. Now with this prohibition lifted, they use those again, known by long-term pragmatic experience to work.

Edited by pamojja, 24 July 2023 - 09:13 AM.

[zen]

In regards to the long covid. Some researchers indicate that spike protein could be the culprit:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/35028901/

https://www.medicaln...g-term-symptoms

 

I also highly recommend an excellent article summarizing known issues related to spike protein written by Doug Corrigan, Ph.D.

https://sciencewithd...the-human-body/

 

Edited by zen, 25 July 2023 - 02:37 AM.

[Hip]

 

In regards to the long covid. Some researchers indicate that spike protein could be the culprit:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/35028901/

https://www.medicaln...g-term-symptoms

 

I also highly recommend an excellent article summarizing known issues related to spike protein written by Doug Corrigan, Ph.D.

https://sciencewithd...the-human-body/

 

 

Yes, the spike protein is one theory. Spike protein induces blood clots, and long COVID patients are found to have lots of microclots in their blood, which some researchers theorise could be a causal factor in long COVID. These microclots could block very small blood vessels, thus starving tissues of oxygen and nutrients. 

 

Some LC patients have been experimenting with anti-clot supplements like nattokinase, with benefits appearing in some cases. 

 

Pfizer recently published an article detailing their 7 hypotheses regarding the possible cause of long COVID. Microclots are one of the 7 theories. 

 

 

 

The ME/CFS form of long COVID though looks more-or-less identical to regular ME/CFS, and the cause of regular ME/CFS has remained a mystery for the last 200 years. Two hundred years ago, ME/CFS was not called what it is today, but was known by the name of neurasthenia. But nobody knows what caused neurasthenia, or what causes ME/CFS.

 

ME/CFS is normally triggered by a viral infection with certain viruses (though sometimes ME/CFS is triggered by a vaccination). Almost all ME/CFS patients have very high antibody levels to certain viruses, suggesting these viruses are active in the body somewhere. So one theory is that ongoing viral infection in critical organs like the brain might underlie ME/CFS, as well as underlie long COVID. But nobody actually knows the cause of these illnesses at this stage.

 

ME/CFS has been called the "last illness that science knows almost nothing about", indicating that we are still clueless to the disease mechanism.

 

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 03:09 AM.

[Mind]

I called BS on the "out of control deadly pandemic sweeping the world" very early on in this discussion. One of the key turning points was the non-use of emergency hospitals in the U.S. Only 1 of those hospitals ever saw any patients. Why? Because the vast vast majority of COVID deaths were elderly and/or had multiple co-morbidities. TO THIS DAY - the average age of death from COVID is around 80 in most countries of the world. In several countries, the average age of COVID victims is over 80!!

 

I don't think people grasp this fact, even three years after it was obvious, that COVID affected the same population that succumbs to the flu or colds every year. My uncle was a perfect example. He was moved into a palliative care center and we were told he probably had a couple of weeks to live. When he got there, he supposedly caught COVID (not sure if he was tested) and died within a few days. He was listed as a COVID death, but he could have been killed by a cold or flu, considering his condition. The vast vast majority of COVID deaths occurred in the segment of the population.

 

In addition, we knew from several large ships (perfect laboratories) with COVID infections/outbreaks that the IFR from COVID was - at best - a tiny fraction of 1%.

 

I am definitely in the camp of "it was just the flu bro". A bad flu season that was grossly mismanaged by unethical and incompetent health bureaucrats in the US/UK and the WHO. With the help of the awful national media in the US, they turned the fear porn up to 11 and to this day people are misinformed about the nature of the COVID panic.

[zen]

I called BS on the "out of control deadly pandemic sweeping the world" very early on in this discussion. One of the key turning points was the non-use of emergency hospitals in the U.S. Only 1 of those hospitals ever saw any patients. Why? Because the vast vast majority of COVID deaths were elderly and/or had multiple co-morbidities. TO THIS DAY - the average age of death from COVID is around 80 in most countries of the world. In several countries, the average age of COVID victims is over 80!!

 

I don't think people grasp this fact, even three years after it was obvious, that COVID affected the same population that succumbs to the flu or colds every year. My uncle was a perfect example. He was moved into a palliative care center and we were told he probably had a couple of weeks to live. When he got there, he supposedly caught COVID (not sure if he was tested) and died within a few days. He was listed as a COVID death, but he could have been killed by a cold or flu, considering his condition. The vast vast majority of COVID deaths occurred in the segment of the population.

 

In addition, we knew from several large ships (perfect laboratories) with COVID infections/outbreaks that the IFR from COVID was - at best - a tiny fraction of 1%.

 

I am definitely in the camp of "it was just the flu bro". A bad flu season that was grossly mismanaged by unethical and incompetent health bureaucrats in the US/UK and the WHO. With the help of the awful national media in the US, they turned the fear porn up to 11 and to this day people are misinformed about the nature of the COVID panic.

I am in the "conspiracy" camp.
The whole thing was too well coordinated across the large number of countries, traditional and social media, to simply blame it on the incompetency of the people involved. 
The probability that all the people responsible for public health in all the different countries suddenly got everything wrong, all of them at exactly the same time, is simply too small to consider such an option seriously.

Here is an interesting take on this:

Edited by zen, 25 July 2023 - 06:24 PM.

[Hip]

I am in the "conspiracy" camp.
The whole thing was too well coordinated across the large number of countries, traditional and social media, to simply blame it on the incompetency of the people involved. 
The probability that all the people responsible for public health in all the different countries suddenly got everything wrong, all of them at exactly the same time, is simply too small to consider such an option seriously.

 

Most countries got their COVID policies right, not wrong. Just because some inexpert armchair commentators on Longecity state that pandemic policies were wrong, that does not make it true. 

 

For example, the COVID vaccines were spectacularly successful, reducing death rates by 2000%. So the experts who, right at the beginning of the pandemic, banked on the vaccines saving mankind got it totally correct. That's why thankfully the world relies on experts, not armchair social media commentators who known next to nothing. 

 

The bad guys during the pandemic were the clueless armchair social media commentators who never studied medical science, but tried to convince the world of their erroneous views.

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 07:43 PM.

[zen]

Most countries got their COVID policies right, not wrong. Just because some inexpert armchair commentators on Longecity state that pandemic policies were wrong does not make it true. 

 

For example, the COVID vaccines were spectacularly successful, reducing death rates by 2000%. So the experts who, right at the beginning of the pandemic, banked on the vaccines saving mankind got it totally correct. That's why thankfully the world relies on experts, not armchair social media commentators who known next to nothing. 

 

The bad guys during the pandemic were the clueless armchair social media commentators.

Not sure what is your source for the 2000% reduction number.

Looking at the below graph I do not see a substantial reduction starting from Jan 2021, that would have backed your claim.
https://ycharts.com/...irus_death_rate

Click on thy 5Y period to get the same view I am looking at.

[Hip]

Not sure what is your source for the 2000% reduction number.

Looking at the below graph I do not see a substantial reduction starting from Jan 2021, that would have backed your claim.
https://ycharts.com/...irus_death_rate

Click on thy 5Y period to get the same view I am looking at.

 

Vaccine efficacy rates have been discussed numerous times on these COVID threads.

 

The original pre-release clinical trials of the vaccines showed around a 2000% death reduction, and real world data corroborates this figure. This is elementary knowledge. I thought everyone by now would be aware of the 2000% death reduction.

 

You cannot use your chart to gauge vaccine efficacy, due to uncontrolled factors. For example, once people are vaccinated, they feel more protected (which they are), so will tend to be happy to expose themselves to more risk of catching COVID. That exposure then increases the death rate. Before the vaccines, most elderly people I know remained at home, and never even went to the supermarket, preferring home delivery of shopping. But once they were vaccinated, they started behaving normally again. 

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 07:55 PM.

[zen]

Vaccine efficacy rates have been discussed numerous times on these COVID threads.

 

The original pre-release clinical trials of the vaccines showed around a 2000% death reduction, and real world data corroborates this figure. This is elementary knowledge. I thought everyone by now would be aware of the 2000% death reduction.

 

You cannot use your chart to gauge vaccine efficacy, due to uncontrolled factors. For example, once people are vaccinated, they feel more protected (which they are), so will tend to be happy to expose themselves to more risk of catching COVID. That exposure then increases the death rate. Before the vaccines, most elderly people I know remained at home, and never even went to the supermarket, preferring home delivery of shopping. But once they were vaccinated, they started behaving normally again. 

The "real world data" link is based on https://corical.immu...alition.org.au/ which is basically a model not a real life data.
(Model design: Colleen Lau, Helen Mayfield, Kerrie Mengersen, Tej Shukla, Jane Sinclair, Ramona Muttucumaru, Sam Brown, Olivia Williams)

The real life data is on the graph I posted above, 2000% reduction would mean 20x less deaths.
The graph indicates that in Jan 2021 the death rate was ~1.7% and today it is around 1% - far from the 20x reduction claim.

Also, if you care, explain where RFK got it wrong:
https://twitter.com/...250995134857218

Edited by zen, 25 July 2023 - 08:49 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Vaccine efficacy rates have been discussed numerous times on these COVID threads.

 

The original pre-release clinical trials of the vaccines showed around a 2000% death reduction, and real world data corroborates this figure. This is elementary knowledge. I thought everyone by now would be aware of the 2000% death reduction.

 

You cannot use your chart to gauge vaccine efficacy, due to uncontrolled factors. For example, once people are vaccinated, they feel more protected (which they are), so will tend to be happy to expose themselves to more risk of catching COVID. That exposure then increases the death rate. Before the vaccines, most elderly people I know remained at home, and never even went to the supermarket, preferring home delivery of shopping. But once they were vaccinated, they started behaving normally again. 

 

Just as an aside - my brain just doesn't work with a phrase such as "a 2000% death reduction".

 

I understand a "90% death reduction", i.e. deaths in group B were only 10% of deaths in group A. But a "2000% death reduction" sounds like we are raising people from the dead.  

 

I admit, this is just a hang up in how my brain works. Perhaps it is from having to deal with people in marketing roles making over the top claims.

[Hip]

The "real world data" link is based on https://corical.immu...alition.org.au/ which is basically a model not a real life data.

 
The Australian data I linked to says (bottom left hand corner): "Case fatality rates for Omicron based on reported cases & deaths in Australia during Omicron circulation". So that suggests real data, not modelled data. 

 

 

If you Google for vaccine efficacy studies, you can find more info. For example, this article says about the Pfizer vaccine: "analysis suggests vaccine efficacy against admission to hospital with the delta variant is 94% after one dose and 96% after two doses."

 

Note that 96% efficacy against hospitalisation = a reduction in hospitalisation by 25 times.

 

This BBC article says Pfizer is 90% effective against death from delta, and AstraZeneca 91% effective. 90% efficacy equates to a reduction in death by 10 times.

 

This article about vaccine efficacy against omicron-related hospitalisation says "In previously non-infected individuals, about 52%, 76%, and 91% protection was observed after the first, second, and third vaccine doses, respectively."

 

91% efficacy equates to a reduction in death by 11 times.

 

 

So you can see that from various different sources that COVID vaccination reduces your chances of hospitalisation or death by 10 to 25 times.

 

 

The real life data is on the graph I posted above, 2000% reduction would mean 20x less deaths.

 

A 2000% reduction means 20 times less deaths, yes. That's what the Australian data showed: 362 deaths in unvaccinated males aged 70+, compared to 18 deaths for the same group who were vaccinated. 362 ÷ 18 = 20.1

 

Your data cannot be used to gauge vaccine efficacy, since after vaccination there are behavioural changes (people socialise and go out more) which increases the number of infections contracted. And there is lots of other noise in that data making it useless for determining vaccine efficacy.

 

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 11:31 PM.

[Hip]

Also, if you care, explain where RFK got it wrong:
https://twitter.com/...250995134857218

 

I am not sure which statement you are referring to, but RFK Jr is a blithering idiot!

 

He gets it wrong the moment he gets up in the morning. 

 

He was once a great environmental lawyer, but now he unfortunately has, I believe, developed a degree of schizotypy, a mental state which leaves people prone to conspiracy theories. Recently RFK Jr was promoting the crazy conspiracy idea that COVID was deliberately engineered to avoid killing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. Need I say any more!

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 11:22 PM.

[Hip]

Just as an aside - my brain just doesn't work with a phrase such as "a 2000% death reduction".

 

I understand a "90% death reduction", i.e. deaths in group B were only 10% of deaths in group A. But a "2000% death reduction" sounds like we are raising people from the dead.  

 

Yes, usually when people are referring to a say a 10-fold reduction in something, they state in terms of a percentage decrease, and state that it was reduced by 90%. That 90% decrease means reduced by 10 times. And similarly, a 99% decrease means reduced by 100 times.

 

But I find that percentage decrease terminology not very clear, as most people will not be able to work out that a 99% decrease means reduced by 100 times.

 

So I was stating vaccine efficacy in terms of a percentage factor change: a reduction by a factor of 2000% means 20 times less. 

 

 

It can be confusing, I agree.

 

I think it would be easier to understand if all articles did not use percentages, and simply stated that a COVID vaccine can reduce you chances of death by 20 times, or whatever the figure might be.

Edited by Hip, 25 July 2023 - 11:24 PM.

[zen]

I am not sure which statement you are referring to, but RFK Jr is a blithering idiot!

 

He gets it wrong the moment he gets up in the morning. 

 

He was once a great environmental lawyer, but now he unfortunately has, I believe, developed a degree of schizotypy, a mental state which leaves people prone to conspiracy theories. Recently RFK Jr was promoting the crazy conspiracy idea that COVID was deliberately engineered to avoid killing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. Need I say any more!

I was asking about what RFK said as shown in this tweet: https://twitter.com/...250995134857218
Which was:

“We Have 4.2% of the Global Population. How Come We Had 16% of the COVID Deaths?” “Whatever they [US health authorities] were doing was catastrophic.” COVID death rate by country: • US - 3,000 per million population • Haiti - 15 per million population • Nigeria - 14 per million population The argument against such figures is that Haiti and Nigeria have much younger populations, which is true. But if you look at Japan, which “has the oldest population in the world, and it had 1/10th the death rate that we did.”

Which is somewhat contradictory to your conviction that:

"Most countries got their COVID policies right, not wrong"


As far as the other controversial thing, I am assuming you are referring to this RFK video:

correct?

If so then I personally think that his statement which starts about 1min into the video (that "covid 19 is targeted...") is probably a bad choice of words - at least it is my assumption.
There is a research published which describes differences in AC2 receptors that are occurring in different ethnic groups:

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32844124/
https://bmcmedicine....916-020-01673-z
https://www.nature.c...598-020-80325-x

However, there is a big gap between the above research and saying that the design of the virus purposefully targeted certain groups.
So, RFK either misspoke or he is misinformed.

Finally, whether you agree with his opinions or not he is definitely not a "blithering idiot".
Calling people names is not a good way to win an argument.

 

Edited by zen, 26 July 2023 - 12:18 AM.

[Hip]

Finally, whether you agree with his opinions or not he is definitely not a "blithering idiot".

 

RFK Jr's statement which you quoted: "We Have 4.2% of the Global Population. How Come We Had 16% of the COVID Deaths?" demonstrates he is a blithering idiot. 

 

Anyone with scientific brain who has followed the pandemic science knows that there was a great deal of country-to-country variation in COVID incidence, due to multiple factors, such as climate, population density, how cooperative or non-cooperative the population are, etc.

 

It's not always fully clear why some countries were hit so much harder by COVID than others, but we know for a fact that Africa was hardly touched at all, whereas places like South America, the US and Europe were hit badly, in terms of their total deaths per capita.

 

You can view this map of the deaths per capita to see that (click on the "deaths per capita" tab).

 

 

 

Now, if RFK Jr had said: "Wow, it's interesting how some regions were much more heavily hit by others, I wonder what the scientists make of that? Do they have any good theories on these discrepancies?" then that would be fine.

 

But instead RFK Jr is blaming US pandemic policies for the high death level in the US, with zero evidence these policies were the cause of the higher death rate.

 

In fact, if you want to pin blame for the higher death rate in the US and Europe, a major cause of this is likely the individualist, non-cooperative nature of the US and European population. All the millions of selfish"pandemic rebels" in the US and Europe, who refused to cooperate with government guidelines and rules regarding lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccination, etc were the evil villains of the story.

 

If you look at all the communitarian countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore — whose national culture is communitarian, and thus naturally highly cooperative with government rules — these had 5 or 10 times less deaths than the US or Europe. Everyone acted in a collectivist manner, putting the greater good before their individual needs, and that resulted in a very effective way to fight the virus.

 

Whereas us selfish, individualistic, rebellious Westerners said "fuck off" to the rules, and this likely why we had so much more death per capita.

 

There have been many articles praising the selfless collectivist action of these communitarian countries during the pandemic:

 

The world’s most communitarian countries are handling the pandemic well. The most individualistic countries are doing the worst. 

 

“The Tragedy of the Commons”: How Individualism and Collectivism Affected the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic 

 

 

 

If RFK Jr was both honest and intelligent, he would understand that, and he would state that.

 

If he were honest, he would say that Western populations need to be less selfish and less rebellious during a time of crisis, and consider the great good in such emergencies. But that would not make him popular, because the Western liberal mindset is by nature selfish and individualistic. We are ourselves, the populace, are to blame for the high death toll. 

Edited by Hip, 26 July 2023 - 12:51 AM.

[Hip]

You can see that rebellious individualist mentality of Westerners play out in these COVID threads on Longevity. Whatever guidelines or rules Western governments have created in order to fight the virus — whether that be vaccination, masks, social distancing, wearing masks, etc — there are rebellious posters here who are deeply opposed to the governments' rules. Many people have the attitude of "to hell with the rules". Then you wonder why Western nations had 5 or 10 times more COVID deaths per capita than more cooperative nations.

[zen]

...
In fact, if you want to pin blame for the higher death rate in the US and Europe, a major cause of this is likely the individualist, non-cooperative nature of the US and European population. All the millions of selfish"pandemic rebels" in the US and Europe, who refused to cooperate with government guidelines and rules regarding lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccination, etc were the evil villains of the story.

 

If you look at all the communitarian countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore — whose national culture is communitarian, and thus naturally highly cooperative with government rules — these had 5 or 10 times less deaths than the US or Europe. Everyone acted in a collectivist manner, putting the greater good before their individual needs, and that resulted in a very effective way to fight the virus.

 

Whereas us selfish, individualistic, rebellious Westerners said "fuck off" to the rules, and this likely why we had so much more death per capita.

 

There have been many articles praising the selfless collectivist action of these communitarian countries during the pandemic:

 

The world’s most communitarian countries are handling the pandemic well. The most individualistic countries are doing the worst. 

 

“The Tragedy of the Commons”: How Individualism and Collectivism Affected the Spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic 

 

 

 

If RFK Jr was both honest and intelligent, he would understand that, and he would state that.

 

If he were honest, he would say that Western populations need to be less selfish and less rebellious during a time of crisis, and consider the great good in such emergencies. But that would not make him popular, because the Western liberal mindset is by nature selfish and individualistic. We are ourselves, the populace, are to blame for the high death toll. 

 

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Covid 19 was never a danger for the whole population.
It was mainly affecting old people and the response should have been targeted towards that segment of the population rather then stopping economies of the whole countries.
Mandating experimental covid shots for everyone, including children, pregnant women and people who already had covid makes zero sense.

I suspect you think differently and that is perfectly fine. Get your boosters, you will be protected.
However, do not force others to take an experimental jab, let them make their own mistakes.
This way everyone will be responsible for their own well being and will have to suffer the consequences if they've made a mistake.

Let's agree where we can and let's agree to disagree in all other cases. 

I guess that's all from my side.








 

 

Edited by zen, 26 July 2023 - 01:08 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I am not sure which statement you are referring to, but RFK Jr is a blithering idiot!

 

He gets it wrong the moment he gets up in the morning. 

 

He was once a great environmental lawyer, but now he unfortunately has, I believe, developed a degree of schizotypy, a mental state which leaves people prone to conspiracy theories. Recently RFK Jr was promoting the crazy conspiracy idea that COVID was deliberately engineered to avoid killing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. Need I say any more!

 

Maybe you should link to the audio itself instead of Politico's take on the audio?

 

I heard a piece of it, and what I thought I heard was RFKjr saying that covid-19 is less lethal to Jews and Asians (there was a peer reviewed article published to that effect). And then noting that you could potentially engineer a virus to preferentially attack a racial group, but I don't think I heard him say exactly what Politico is saying.

 

But, I was in the car driving to work and not paying 100% attention and maybe there was something that I did not hear or understand.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

You can see that rebellious individualist mentality of Westerners play out in these COVID threads on Longevity. Whatever guidelines or rules Western governments have created in order to fight the virus — whether that be vaccination, masks, social distancing, wearing masks, etc — there are rebellious posters here who are deeply opposed to the governments' rules. Many people have the attitude of "to hell with the rules". Then you wonder why Western nations had 5 or 10 times more COVID deaths per capita than more cooperative nations.

 

A healthy skepticism of governments and a tendency to want to limit their powers has served the West pretty well for a long time.

 

But we are diverting into politics now.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 26 July 2023 - 02:00 AM.

[Hip]

However, do not force others to take an experimental jab, let them make their own mistakes.

This way everyone will be responsible for their own well being and will have to suffer the consequences if they've made a mistake.

 

It's not just the vaccines that Western individualists rebelled against, it was every government pandemic policy that was rejected and flouted.

 

In the UK for example we had a rule that no more than 6 people could gather in public, to limit viral spread; but many just ignored that, and had mass gatherings. While this rule was in operation, I saw in my local area around 50 people gathering in a marriage ceremony. And the newspapers were reporting secret rave parties of hundreds of young people. These young people of course were at low risk of death, but they may have brought home the virus which then killed grandpa or grandma.

 

People in the West are very keen to blame their governments, scientists, politicians, etc, but the Western public simply refuse to accept any of the blame themselves, even though the public's blatant lack of cooperation with the rules resulted in catastrophically high death rates. 

 

When you point your finger at others to blame, but you present yourself as perfect and blameless, as the Western public does, there is something very fundamentally wrong. That makes the Western public hypocritical and sanctimonious.

 

Sometimes you have to take a good look at yourself in the mirror, and admit your own faults first, before blaming others.

 

And by the way, when I say "the public", I mean all sections of society. People from all walks of life were flouting the rules. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 26 July 2023 - 03:25 AM.

[Hip]

Maybe you should link to the audio itself instead of Politico's take on the audio?

 

The video of Kennedy making those remarks about possible deliberate ethnic targeting can be viewed here. 

[Mind]

Some people forget how awful the US media was during the COVID panic. It is a very bad problem that people still believe the US national media. Watch the video which shows how stupid CNN, ABC, NBC, et al were early in the COVID panic. The WHO and CDC should not be trusted either. World-renowned experts were ignored and ridiculed when they accurately pegged the IFR from COVID was a tiny fraction of 1%. THOSE EXPERTS WERE CORRECT, yet people still believe the clueless CDC and WHO to this day. It is dangerous that so many people still believe the media and public "health" authorities - instead of relying on the data and opinion from real experts (not bureaucrats) who have gotten EVERYTHING right in the last 3 years.

 

https://www.youtube....5DYknp9cc&t=35s

Edited by Mind, 23 August 2023 - 06:39 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Great link, Mind! 

[Mind]

The latest careful review of diverse national statistics on COVID seroprevalence and death rates indicates the IFR from COVID in people under 70 is 0.07%. For the under 60 crowd it is 0.03%

 

Not 3.4% that the US national media tried to convince everyone of  - and has been rarely corrected  - because the US national media is awful.

 

Not 1%

 

Not one-tenth of 1 percent.

 

Less than one-tenth of 1%.

 

It was...and it remains a disease that is mainly a concern for the frail elderly - mostly people in nursing homes over 80. For those, it is like a bad flu, and a going concern.

 

For everyone else, it is not even like a bad flu season. It is much less than that.

 

This new study probably does not even delve into the wild overcounting of COVID cases in 2020, nor does it account for the iatrogenic deaths from ventilators and remdesivir. If beneficial treatments like IVM and HCQ (proven in peer-reviewed studies) had been allowed...if people were encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles and take immune boosting supplements....the IFR from COVID would probably be less than 0.01 percent. In addition, adopting lifestyles that improve immune function would have had immense positive knock-on effects of reducing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. incidence.

 

This thread started with the question if COVID would be overblown, like so many other infectious disease scares of the past century. Verdict: True. The true pandemic was one of fear - spread by public health authorities and national media outlets.

[Hip]

It was...and it remains a disease that is mainly a concern for the frail elderly

 
It has been pointed out numerous times that long COVID hits all ages, and often hits perfectly healthy people. So the effects of SARS-CoV-2 are absolutely not restricted to the elderly. I am not sure why you are ignoring long COVID, as I keep mentioning it; an example of the the ostrich effect perhaps? Long COVID is often a devastating condition; you might want to read a bit about it, so that you are better informed about the terrible toll the COVID pandemic has inflicted. 


 

COVID seroprevalence and death rates indicates the IFR from COVID in people under 70 is 0.07%.

If you exclude the people who died, the IFR rate is actually 0%. So nothing to worry about at all! In fact all pandemics are pretty benign, if you don't count the deaths!

 

 

 

When we go back to the beginning of the pandemic, when there were no protective vaccines, and when SARS-CoV-2 was a more potent virus, death rates for the those in their 50s were 1.3%, and for those in their 40s it was 0.4%. For those in their 60s it was 3.6%. Ref: here. 

 

Sure, once many people have been vaccinated, and we have the more benign omicron variant, death rates go down. But you seem to be forgetting that at the beginning, the death rates were pretty high. 

 

Edited by Hip, 22 November 2023 - 09:19 PM.