What If The Best Approach To Covid Was, "No Jabs For Anybody"?
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Your parents should have used prophylaxsis.
You put the last thread in H&F because you thought we couldn't rape you publicly. Wrong.
You failed econ 099. Cost of a vaccine: $0.00. Three days in the ICU while triage patients are dying in the parking garage? $50,000.
You fucking moron. The economy is OPEN FOR BUSINESS because of vaccines... not bc of your vet-meds or monoclonals. K*** urself.
NY COVID DEATHS 7D AVERAGE: 16
FL COVID DEATHS 7D AVERAGE: 227
.
You put the last thread in H&F because you thought we couldn't rape you publicly. Wrong.
You failed econ 099. Cost of a vaccine: $0.00. Three days in the ICU while triage patients are dying in the parking garage? $50,000.
You fucking moron. The economy is OPEN FOR BUSINESS because of vaccines... not bc of your vet-meds or monoclonals. K*** urself.
NY COVID DEATHS 7D AVERAGE: 16
FL COVID DEATHS 7D AVERAGE: 227
.
So what the study says is that the people with COVID who did not die or use up an ICU for a long time and suffered, those people have good natural immunity and do better than vaccinated but fuck the others who are overwhleming hospitals or suffeirng for several weeks and thankfully got better....
So we should wait until everyone gets COVID, subtract out those who died who who went to the ICU or were sick at home for weeks and use that small subset of data to then go back in time and say those people did not need the vaccine because we have ESP and future telling machines...
I cannot believe a bunch of scientists said this.... although there was a study that did say more people die on crowded airplanes that crash than emptier planes that crash.... fucking genius.
So we should wait until everyone gets COVID, subtract out those who died who who went to the ICU or were sick at home for weeks and use that small subset of data to then go back in time and say those people did not need the vaccine because we have ESP and future telling machines...
I cannot believe a bunch of scientists said this.... although there was a study that did say more people die on crowded airplanes that crash than emptier planes that crash.... fucking genius.
These arguments do not have to be so binary...
"Its not fuck everyone else..."
Its protect the high risk and let the low risk live...
DePrado who is acknowledged as one of the best financial modelers in the world...
modeled this over a year ago. (see below for this paper)
with the obvious conclusion (to me anyway) that given that this virus was destroying those with co morbidities but mostly the flu for others...
We should Protect the High Risk... let the low risk live as long as there is hospital space..
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3579712
Abstract
Six weeks after becoming a pandemic, COVID-19 has caused over 150,000 deaths across 210 countries. Governments around the world have instituted universal lockdowns to curve the spread of this serious disease. While it is obvious that extended universal lockdowns have saved lives that otherwise would have been lost to COVID-19, they have also caused historical losses of livelihoods. Universal lockdowns are particularly detrimental to minorities and the working class, who have suffered the greatest job loss since the Great Depression. In some countries, unemployment carries the loss of access to health services, which is the opposite of what lockdowns intended to achieve. Hundreds of millions of citizens worldwide will endure the effects of universal lockdowns for years to come.
Universal lockdowns are a blunt tool that should be used tactically, for brief periods of time. In this study, we introduce a new mathematical model (called K-SEIR) to simulate the outcomes of lockdowns, and help evaluate various exit strategies. We demonstrate that targeted lockdowns can achieve better outcomes than universal lockdowns, in terms of (1) saving lives, (2) protecting the most vulnerable in society (the elderly, the poor), and (3) preventing the depletion of medical resources.
There is not one solution that fits all. National governments must devise tailored targeted lockdowns, based on their particular circumstances. We hope that the K-SEIR model will help governments learn from the mistakes of the COVID-19 crisis management, and help prepare society for COVID-20.
"Its not fuck everyone else..."
Its protect the high risk and let the low risk live...
DePrado who is acknowledged as one of the best financial modelers in the world...
modeled this over a year ago. (see below for this paper)
with the obvious conclusion (to me anyway) that given that this virus was destroying those with co morbidities but mostly the flu for others...
We should Protect the High Risk... let the low risk live as long as there is hospital space..
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3579712
Abstract
Six weeks after becoming a pandemic, COVID-19 has caused over 150,000 deaths across 210 countries. Governments around the world have instituted universal lockdowns to curve the spread of this serious disease. While it is obvious that extended universal lockdowns have saved lives that otherwise would have been lost to COVID-19, they have also caused historical losses of livelihoods. Universal lockdowns are particularly detrimental to minorities and the working class, who have suffered the greatest job loss since the Great Depression. In some countries, unemployment carries the loss of access to health services, which is the opposite of what lockdowns intended to achieve. Hundreds of millions of citizens worldwide will endure the effects of universal lockdowns for years to come.
Universal lockdowns are a blunt tool that should be used tactically, for brief periods of time. In this study, we introduce a new mathematical model (called K-SEIR) to simulate the outcomes of lockdowns, and help evaluate various exit strategies. We demonstrate that targeted lockdowns can achieve better outcomes than universal lockdowns, in terms of (1) saving lives, (2) protecting the most vulnerable in society (the elderly, the poor), and (3) preventing the depletion of medical resources.
There is not one solution that fits all. National governments must devise tailored targeted lockdowns, based on their particular circumstances. We hope that the K-SEIR model will help governments learn from the mistakes of the COVID-19 crisis management, and help prepare society for COVID-20.
“Unvaccinated people did their homework early on, and that is precisely why they are still unvaccinated.” ~Gregory Alan Elliott
From an individual standpoint the high risk did deserve to get protected by the vaccine.
But... the risks to society as whole?
many have said that when you give a vaccine with only temporary immunity during a pandemic you could have a disaster.
Some experts have told us that risk is unquantifiable in that we don't know what kind of variants will come out the high risk as they get infected with partial vaccine immunity.
If giving the vaccine out in the middle of a pandemic produces a virus which wipes out large segments of the population... in retrospect... we will know.
If that does not happen then the vaccines were a good thing.
But... the risks to society as whole?
many have said that when you give a vaccine with only temporary immunity during a pandemic you could have a disaster.
Some experts have told us that risk is unquantifiable in that we don't know what kind of variants will come out the high risk as they get infected with partial vaccine immunity.
If giving the vaccine out in the middle of a pandemic produces a virus which wipes out large segments of the population... in retrospect... we will know.
If that does not happen then the vaccines were a good thing.
Last edited:
So when is this supposed to happen because here, in the real world, vaccinated people have much better outcomes with Covid than unvaccinated people.
For example for every unvaccinated 29 people who age 49 in the hospital with Covid, there is one 64 year old vaccinated person in the hospital with Covid.
There are so many younger and unvaccinated people suffering and dying with Covid than there are vaccinated people.
So the question to you is, if what you pose is at all true and it is definitely not happening now, when will it happen?
you are living a promise that is fading quickly right now and very hard to quantify... overall.
Where will we be in six months... absent boosters.?
The antibodies are fading and efficacy for the high risk are getting worse by the week or month.
Much of the "good" result could be due to the fact the low risk and vaccinated have strong immune systems anyway.
And now we have learned the vaccines are at least 7 times worse than natural immunity.. in the recent study from Israel.
if you are not examining this through a lens of
grouping the high risk together and the low risk together
any conclusions are suspect.
We can see that the high risk get at least short term benefits from the vaccine.
The question is... do they have long term benefits?
I would like to see if the low risk are getting much benefit?
Are these vaccines keeping the low risk from getting severe covid in statistically significant ratios? and if so
for how long?
Where will we be in six months... absent boosters.?
The antibodies are fading and efficacy for the high risk are getting worse by the week or month.
Much of the "good" result could be due to the fact the low risk and vaccinated have strong immune systems anyway.
And now we have learned the vaccines are at least 7 times worse than natural immunity.. in the recent study from Israel.
if you are not examining this through a lens of
grouping the high risk together and the low risk together
any conclusions are suspect.
We can see that the high risk get at least short term benefits from the vaccine.
The question is... do they have long term benefits?
I would like to see if the low risk are getting much benefit?
Are these vaccines keeping the low risk from getting severe covid in statistically significant ratios? and if so
for how long?
Last edited:
