Obedience to the state

@Botolph does that take into account the asymptotic cases?

 

It takes account of notified cases. So if an asymptomatic case was found it would be reported, on the other hand if not found and not reported then it would not be included. Nor would cases that have not been reported be included.

If we accept the basic figures as reported by who these are the numbers. For a 99.7% survival rate as suggested, then either you need world wide some 1.5 billion cases if the death count is correct, or your need the death count to be reduced to 658,370 if you accept the cases reported. In the absence of compelling reasons to challenge the reported statistics, I have merely accepted them.

 

Okay, I guess a bunch of folks would like to trade 'facts' and bits of information about Covid and its seriousness, and about the shots. Well, why not. It's interesting stuff and it's on most people's minds.

I have read dozens and dozens of reports about the overstating of the number of Covid deaths in the US. There are several reasons why this is happening.

For one, the hospitals are being financially rewarded for reporting Covid cases, and even more greatly rewarded for intubating patients. Hospitals are big business; they aren't Christian charities like they might have been 50 or 100 years ago.

For another, every death with which a positive Covid test result or diagnosis can be associated is being counted as a Covid death. People who had pneumonia, influenza, a heart attack, a stroke, or even a car accident have been categorized as Covid deaths. Nurses and other medical personnel have spoken out about these things. There have been a number of newspaper articles detailing people who went into the hospital for something totally unrelated to Covid (like an operation, for example) and ended up dying in the hospital, and their deaths were categorized as Covid casualties.

Then there have been the hospital employees who have spoken out about the improper medical procedures in their hospitals, procedures which increased Covid mortality. Patients who tested negative were placed in the Covid ward anyway, where they caught Covid and later died. Patients diagnosed with Covid were not treated in the normal manner (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, encouraged to get up and move around to breathe deeply, etc.) as they would have treated someone with upper respiratory ailments prior to 2020. Some people with Covid were transported to nursing homes, where they infected all of the residents (elderly people with many preexisting conditions that predisposed them to succumb to an upper respiratory virus), many of whom died.

The number of influenza deaths tanked in the US, thanks to so many deaths being categorized as Covid casualties. And let's realize that the overwhelming majority of so-called 'Covid deaths' are people who are particularly susceptible to such an illness (particularly the elderly), whether it is Covid, influenza, pneumonia, or something else; the proper and traditional way to deal with this type of thing has always been for the susceptible to self-isolate. These are people who wouldn't have much longer in this world anyway, not that I'm being callous, but I say that merely to point out that Covid is not the scourge of the planet that it's being characterized as; it is not a wholesale destroyer of the populace like the black plague or something.

I observe one more noteworthy thing about the "percentage game" being played with Covid death numbers is the way they keep adding up. I mean, they didn't stop counting after 1 year and start over from zero, the way they count everything else. If we added influenza deaths cumulatively since the time when they first started counting them, influenza might be at a hundred million deaths (or more) by now, and everyone would be freaking out and panicking. But we don't count that way, because people are always getting older and more susceptible to diseases and dying from them. Remember: all life on this planet has a zero percent survival rate, eventually; that's why we don't use cumulative numbers the way they're doing with Covid.

So when you see that "97.93% survival rate," take it with a grain of salt. A lot of manipulations have gone into making that number.

 

A brief fact concerning the Covid "vaccines": in the US, the medical community reports adverse events associated with these shots to the CDC. These "vaccines" have rather widely available here for only about 6 or 7 months. As of Oct. 15 we have had adverse event reports of 17,128 deaths and 83,412 hospitalizations associated with the receipt of these concoctions. The number of people who die within 48 hours of getting the shot is alarming. And some healthcare workers say they've been discouraged by their bosses from reporting adverse events associated with the Covid shots, so those numbers may be lower than reality.

 

I am actually OK with most of what you say here. Thankfully in New South Wales our Chief Health Officer reports people dying with Covid-19 rather than dying of Covid-19, and generally speaks of Covid-19 related deaths. I see that as having integrity, and I respect that.

The major burden of the Hospital System in Australia is carried by the States, as against the Federal Government or Private Enterprise. The level of cross checking and accountability does mean that it is a very expensive system, however it is not driven in the same sense to turn a profit. Hospitals have always been a good place to pick up a disease, and Covid-19 has been no different, and PPE and barrier nursing have been used extensively and in the main effectively. Most hospital outbreaks have been the result of a breach in protocols.

In terms of setting a recount on the stats, that is not normal practice in a pandemic, and your best case comparison would be the Spanish Flu pandemic of a century ago. The relative numbers do underline that there has been a media frenzy. Proportionally it was much more significant, and was resolved without a vaccine.

In terms of 'manipulations' you do appear to use the term with a sense of intent, and perhaps a more neutral phrase could have been used, such as 'there are a variety of factors that could be affecting these results'.

I note that you have not provided the basis for your claim of a 99.7% survival rate, and I suspect that of that, when you produce it, I might be inclined to say 'there are a variety of factors that could be affecting these results'.

Of course the question is by what factor. You are suggesting a case morbidity of around .3% whilst WHO numbers suggest a case morbidity of around 2.1%. If your number is correct then you are suggesting that the number has been inflated by about 600%.

Now if my wife come home with a new dress, and I say 'that's nice', and she says 'it was only $30', however when reviewing the bank account I see that it was $210, we will have another conversation, and no doubt I will be in trouble again!

I don't want to run wild, however if we want to measure these things and make an assessment as to an appropriate response, then we will need some 'white hat' assessment of the information. WHO, in my view ought to be able to be relied on to produce value free case information, and I am certainly not going to accuse them to distorting figures.

 

We will never be able to have absolute certainty about the survival rate, but at least there is evidence (link here) that survivability is very high for people under the age of 70. Covid barely kills any young children, and this is notably unlike influenza which heavily strikes the entire 50+ age group but also kills the very young at a heightened rate.

By the way, the "Spanish Flu" outbreak 100 years ago killed somewhere between 20 million and 50 million people, at at time when world population was less than 2 billion. Today, with a world population approaching 7.8 billion, the claimed death toll from Covid is less than 5 million. If my math is correct, 5M/7800M is 0.0641% dead, which is a survivability percentage so far of 99.9359%.

 

The survivability of Covid-19 is clear. Younger people are in general more resilient to the virus, old people and people with co-morbidities, and other susceptibilities are more prone to catch and suffer severe symptoms, and death. One particular group in our country are the first nations' people, both aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders, and we have taken some significant efforts to protect them. The Delta Strain of the Virus which seems to be what we in Australia are dealing with at the moment has been far more prevalent amongst younger people, including quite a number of deaths, and this may in fact reflect the reluctance to get vaccinated early amongst this age group. Mind you not altogether their own fault as we have had supply constraints in Australia.

I have made this point before, and I thought in this thread. The proportional impact of the Spanish Flu far outstrips Covid-19. That may in fact reflect some of the response that was taken to arrest the spread of the virus early amongst many western nations. However I am quite certain that you know that is not how you calculate survivability rates, but rather against the case load, not the total population.

Bubonic Plague, a hangover descendent of the Justinian Plague kills a couple of people each year. That does not mean it is not a serious disease. It clearly is, and should not want to catch it. Against Covid-a9 of course the issue becomes one of scope and scale.

Every one of those 5 million people who have died with Covid-19 is a human being made in the image and after the likeness of God. Every one of them matters to God, and every one of the should matter to us.

That being said, I also understand the English lady who on reading an account of a Boer War battle, and the enormous casualties, declared, 'what a tragedy, and what a blessing that one cares for none of them'. There is after all only so much of the world pain any one of us can carry. Robustitude is a virtue.

 

Here is a quote from the leftist (pro-vaccination) media:

 

Oh I would definitely be able to grasp it. Can't you be succint rather than have to take hours of writing to explain yourself?

 

Your rather precise figure would leave 0.03% not surviving COVID-19. If 0.03% of the UK's population were to die of COVID-19 that would be 1800000 deaths. Rather a large number of people to die I think. However, I think even a small fraction of those deaths would be too many. I wonder if you would be so cavalier about it if someone you loved died from COVID-19

I think your rather terse comments do exaggerate what is happening. It would certainly be an exaggeration of what is happening in the UK.

However, it is not as simple as saying 99.97% would survive. You could be a 20-year-old who is very healthy. If you were infected with SARS-CoV-2 you may get a very mild form of COVID-19 or no illness at all. That would not prevent you from passing the virus on to say you dearly beloved 90-year-old great grandmother. If she were infected with the virus she may possibly be very ill and die. I am sure no one would want their loved ones to die because they acted as if only they had a low risk and didn't pose any risk to another as a vector of the virus.

This is a novel virus and no humans have natural immunity to it. Waiting whilst herd immunity developed naturally could result in a lot of deaths and could place health services under significant strain. Indeed, we have seen the latter and many other diseases are not getting treated because of this.

A vaccine will help the human population get immunity to this virus. It is going to be here for a long time and may be for good now. The more people are immune the lower the prevalence of the disease in the human population. In the UK we had measles-free status. This was taken off us by the WHO in 2016 because people believed in false evidence and scaremongering and the uptake of measles vaccine significantly dropped. Now measles is on the rise in the UK.

There are vaccines for many diseases and people willingly have them. I do not understand the reluctance with the COVID-19 vaccines. They are the route back to normal life and the best way to protect those you love. It infuriates me that false information is spread about these vaccines which are preventing people from having them. The problem is the unfounded claims made by anti-vaxxers are easy to understand. They are deliberately plain and simple. However, the science is far more complex and demanding to understand. Most people these days cannot be bothered to take the trouble to learn the true facts when a quick tweet or a post on Facebook can be done so much more quickly.

I am vaccinated and those I love are vaccinated. I will not have an ounce of sympathy for those who refuse to take up the vaccines and subsequently die from or have long-term disabilities from COVID-19/

 

Clearly, if you and your wife have had the vaccine you are not opposed to it. However, it does seem to be a common theme developing throughout this thread.

I think rather than objecting to its imposition on anyone it would be better to discover who is imposing and on whom. I am not aware of any country where it is being forced on the entire population. Having learned who is imposing the vaccine on whom ask what are their reasons and consider whether they are good or bad.

 

When was opentheWord recognised as a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal?

 

We have had even worse diseases in the past, and continued to have the extremely deadly annual flu even as recently as 2019. But even with 100,000 annual deaths from the flu, we all still remained free men in all that time. What's changed now?

Even if my kids, myself, or my wife died from Covid-19, I would not think that to be a sufficient reason for eradicating the "old" human liberty from the planet, and turning the Government into the eternal overlord above the people. I am not a supporter of fascism and communism.

There are certain preconditions without which life itself is not worth living.

Samuel Adams, 1775:
-"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

 

Not really. Too many data sources to find again (never bookmarked) and link to as evidence. And I'm not very fast at typing.

 

You are off by two decimal places. Once you multiply .03 times the population, you then divide by 100 to account for the percent.
.03% = .0003

 

Health professionals acknowledge that this "vaccine" does not prevent anyone from contracting, carrying, or passing on the virus. So even you who are vaccinated could be the one who unfortunately infects that 90 year old person; there's nothing you can do to totally prevent this, short of living inside a bubble.

Our bodies respond as they always have responded to diseases new to them: they produce antibodies and develop natural immunity. A youth who has never had influenza would have no natural immunity to it, but once he's had it and recovered from it he does have some natural immunity. Same thing with this coronavirus, a variant of other coronaviruses that have existed for millennia.

Maybe, or maybe not. There are some who think the Delta variant would not have surged to the forefront the way it did, had we not 'vaccinated' so many but had allowed them to develop natural immunity by catching a mild case of the original Covid. Because the mRNA shot only targets a certain specific spike protein on the original variant, the virus was encouraged to mutate rapidly and dangerously by adapting to the mRNA trick and developing a new means of attack. Usually a virus' later variants become progressively less virulent and dangerous, not more so.

Now that I've explained a bit, perhaps you are more understanding? I hope so. You see, vaccines have always contained deadened or severely weakened actual virus, and this causes an immune response that is very natural and that provides some protection against variants as well as strong protection against the original version. But this concoction contains no actual virus in any form; it contains something new and different, and since we've never used mRNA before, we have zero data on possible long term effects and safety.

Yes, it upsets me, too.

But I have great sympathy for those who take the 'vaccines' and subsequently have died from it or have suffered long-term disabilities from the mRNA concoction. Like an old family friend whom we've known for 30 years, a very healthy woman about my age who eats right and exercises, but who got the jab and suffered severe heart inflammation; her doctor confirmed that the damage was caused by the 'vaccine,' and told her she'll likely die if she gets a second dose. I feel very sad for her, and I'm angry about the lying you-know-whats at the pharmaceutical companies... companies that will profit more than one hundred billion dollars this year from sales of these Covid shots. (And they're talking about raising the prices tenfold next year. They have our governments paying for the stuff and granting them freedom from all liability, so they can't even be sued for the damages their stuff is causing. What a racket!)

 

The state I live in is one of the free states in the USA. Although initially I don't think that the early Christians had as of yet developed and thought through the idea of Natural Law, which comes from God.

 

Hmm, interesting. I wonder how calculating against the case load can be at all accurate, when so many people who catch this virus have very mild or no symptoms and do not get counted in the case load?

 

And that would have been true of the Spanish Flu as well.