SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:46 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:45 am

https://nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible

Even with vaccination efforts in full force, the theoretical threshold for vanquishing COVID-19 looks to be out of reach.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:35 pm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22214-z

Hospital load and increased COVID-19 related mortality in Israel

The spread of Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has led to many healthcare systems being overwhelmed by the rapid emergence of new cases. Here, we study the ramifications of hospital load due to COVID-19 morbidity on in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 by analyzing records of all 22,636 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Israel from mid-July 2020 to mid-January 2021. We show that even under moderately heavy patient load (>500 countrywide hospitalized severely-ill patients; the Israeli Ministry of Health defined 800 severely-ill patients as the maximum capacity allowing adequate treatment), in-hospital mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 significantly increased compared to periods of lower patient load (250–500 severely-ill patients): 14-day mortality rates were 22.1% (Standard Error 3.1%) higher (mid-September to mid-October) and 27.2% (Standard Error 3.3%) higher (mid-December to mid-January). We further show this higher mortality rate cannot be attributed to changes in the patient population during periods of heavier load.

...

We postulate that the excess mortality is most likely due to the rapid escalation in the number of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during these time periods in Israel, which may have resulted in an insufficiency of health-care resources, thereby negatively affecting patient outcomes.

...

In conclusion, here we have shown that the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Israel was associated with health-care burden, reflected by the simultaneous number of hospitalized patients in a severe condition. Our work emphasizes that even in countries in which the healthcare system did not reach a specific point defined as insufficiency, the increase in hospital workload was associated with quality of care and patient mortality, ruling out factors related to change in the hospitalized population. In addition, our study highlights the importance of quantifying excess mortality in order to assess quality of care, and define an appropriate carrying capacity of severe patients in order to guide timely healthcare policies and allocate appropriate resources.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:07 pm

stickdog99 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:45 am wrote:https://nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible

Even with vaccination efforts in full force, the theoretical threshold for vanquishing COVID-19 looks to be out of reach.


Indeed, it's endemic. Any attempt to "vanquish" this virus is hubris at best, or false-advertising (for sinister ulterior motives) at worst.

Thankfully it's nowhere near as serious to health (for those outside the outlier risk groups) as promoted by fear-mongering press and various talking heads. A moot point, unfortunately, as devastating draconian measures have been implemented regardless with no end in sight -- but there remains opportunity to refuse/resist.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby DrEvil » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:41 am

The idea is to use vaccines to get from the virus landing you in the ICU to the virus landing you on the couch with Netflix for two days. Anything else will essentially put the "outlier risk groups" (only 50 million aged 65+ in the US, plus the diabetics, the cancer patients, etc. Hardly worth mentioning really) in a permanent game of Russian roulette.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:00 am

.

I understand the premise, and broadly, appreciate the approach given consensus views on vaccines. My own views on vaccines have shifted over the past year, taking into account data points since this propaganda campaign started.

But we have to remind ourselves (a challenge, given the persistent messaging otherwise out there right now), that COVID is simply a low-likelihood death cause, even for the elderly: ~94.6% survival rate for those over 70. There are myriad other ailments or causes of death markedly more common for that age group.

Further, these current crop of 'vaccines' should not be placed in the same category of prior historical vaccines for the following reasons:

1. They are currently being administered as EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), with initial trials to continue until 2023 at the earliest before they can be considered for FDA approval;
2. Unprecedented rollout for 'vaccines' on the population that have less than 1 year of trials (the average is 7 - 10 yrs); the fact is no one knows long-term side effects; humans are being used as experimental subjects;
3. Unprecedented use of mRNA on humans for the first time.

While I can understand (regardless of my disagreement) why someone over 70 may gamble with their livelihood by taking these shots in the near-term, I see no explicable reason for anyone outside the outlier risk groups to take these vaccines, at least not for another ~2+ years, at which point we will likely have a better sense of the extent of long-term side effects.

Only conditioning mechanisms (applied over many years) would inspire the healthy and young to line up for this. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FOLLOWING STATS:

According to the CDC, the survival from Covid (with inflated stats) is as follows: (under 20) 99.997%, (29-49) 99.98%, (50-69) 99.5% and (over 70), 94.6%.


If this was a 'vaccine' like all prior vaccines with 7+ years of trials and FDA approval, I'd understand the interest in getting a shot. But it's not. Not even close.

It's quite surreal to observe.

Most major media outlets don't even mention herd immunity, let alone any vaccine side effects. Unfortunately, the same applies for certain social media savvy MDs, though there remain those that reference herd immunity as contributing factors to drops in spread.


Keep in mind, the below figures display only near-term reporting. Long-term stats remain pending; these stats wouldn't include unreported scenarios, of course.

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findf ... AX=COVID19

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:37 pm

.


In other words, for those that have been dutifully adhering to mandates: GO OUTSIDE. Maskless.

Sunlight renders coronavirus inactive 8 TIMES faster than predicted, says new study

Researchers have found that the coronavirus is inactivated by sunlight as much as eight times faster in experiments than predicted by current theoretical modelling, providing a glimmer of hope in turning the tide on the pandemic.

UC Santa Barbara assistant professor of mechanical engineering Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz conducted an analysis of 2020 studies exploring the effects of different forms of UV radiation on the SARS-CoV-2 and found a significant discrepancy.

As with all electromagnetic radiation, UV falls on a spectrum, with longer-wave UVA reacting differently with parts of DNA and RNA than other mid-range UVB waves contained in sunlight, which kill microbes and cause sunburn in humans.

Short-wave UVC radiation has previously been shown to deactivate viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for Covid-19, but this section of the UV spectrum is deflected away by the Earth’s ozone layer.

A July 2020 experimental study tested the power of UV light on SARS-CoV-2, contained in simulated saliva, and found the virus was inactivated in under 20 minutes.

However, a theory published a month later suggested sunlight could achieve the same effect, which didn’t quite add up. This second study concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was three times more sensitive to UV radiation in sunlight than the influenza A virus.

The vast majority of coronavirus particles were rendered inactive within 30 minutes of exposure to midday summer sunlight, whereas the virus could survive for days under winter sunlight.

“The experimentally observed inactivation in simulated saliva is over eight times faster than would have been expected from the theory,” Luzzatto-Feigiz and his team said. “So, scientists don’t yet know what’s going on.”

The team suspects that, as the UVC doesn’t reach the Earth, instead of directly attacking the RNA, the long-wave UVA in sunlight interacts with molecules in the virus’ environment, such as saliva, which speeds up the inactivation, in a process witnessed previously in wastewater treatment.

The findings suggest UVA emitters could be added to equipment such as air filtration systems to provide a cheap and energy-efficient means of reducing the spread of viral particles. Masks and social distancing would more than likely still be required, but such UV-based interventions could be of some benefit as nations struggle with recurring waves of the pandemic despite vaccination efforts.



https://www.rt.com/news/519921-sunlight ... -inactive/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:46 pm

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby PufPuf93 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:24 pm



Vitamin D is unquestionably important in the immune system, not open to question at all. If one has a strong immune system, cv19 will have less impact on average; a person in good health bears less risk on average of severe or long haul consequences of infection and likely less tendency to pass on the virus. Theses facts about vitamin D and the immune system is obvious to most medical practitioners or researchers or people with a modicum of scientific literacy. The meta-study you cite confirms the positive effects of vitamin D on the immune system in the specific case of cv19 infection. The researchers have confirmed the positive effects of vitamin D on the immunes system ability to cope with cv19 and more importantly made estimates to quantify the impact. The researchers expected the results that were revealed. But Vitamin D does not cure nor prevent cv19.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:52 pm

PufPuf93 » 04 Apr 2021 18:24 wrote:


Vitamin D is unquestionably important in the immune system, not open to question at all. If one has a strong immune system, cv19 will have less impact on average; a person in good health bears less risk on average of severe or long haul consequences of infection and likely less tendency to pass on the virus. Theses facts about vitamin D and the immune system is obvious to most medical practitioners or researchers or people with a modicum of scientific literacy. The meta-study you cite confirms the positive effects of vitamin D on the immune system in the specific case of cv19 infection. The researchers have confirmed the positive effects of vitamin D on the immunes system ability to cope with cv19 and more importantly made estimates to quantify the impact. The researchers expected the results that were revealed. But Vitamin D does not cure nor prevent cv19.


OK. Can you tell me what percentage of patients under 70 who are hospitalized because of COVID-19 also have a Vitamin D deficiency?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90530

More striking was that vitamin D deficiency was found in 97% of severely ill patients who required ICU admission but in only 33% of asymptomatic cases, suggesting that low levels are a necessary component of severe COVID-19. This is one of numerous studies this year establishing the correlation of low vitamin D levels with an aggravated course of COVID-19, as a meta-analysis by Pereira and colleagues reveals.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... k-patients

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... ation.aspx
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby PufPuf93 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:09 pm

stickdog99 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:52 pm wrote:
PufPuf93 » 04 Apr 2021 18:24 wrote:


Vitamin D is unquestionably important in the immune system, not open to question at all. If one has a strong immune system, cv19 will have less impact on average; a person in good health bears less risk on average of severe or long haul consequences of infection and likely less tendency to pass on the virus. Theses facts about vitamin D and the immune system is obvious to most medical practitioners or researchers or people with a modicum of scientific literacy. The meta-study you cite confirms the positive effects of vitamin D on the immune system in the specific case of cv19 infection. The researchers have confirmed the positive effects of vitamin D on the immunes system ability to cope with cv19 and more importantly made estimates to quantify the impact. The researchers expected the results that were revealed. But Vitamin D does not cure nor prevent cv19.


OK. Can you tell me what percentage of patients under 70 who are hospitalized because of COVID-19 also have a Vitamin D deficiency?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/90530

More striking was that vitamin D deficiency was found in 97% of severely ill patients who required ICU admission but in only 33% of asymptomatic cases, suggesting that low levels are a necessary component of severe COVID-19. This is one of numerous studies this year establishing the correlation of low vitamin D levels with an aggravated course of COVID-19, as a meta-analysis by Pereira and colleagues reveals.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec ... k-patients

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... ation.aspx


We are blurring words here and have different reading perceptions. No doubt Vitamin D is a preventative against cv19. Common sense then quantified by what BS posted immediately above. Here is from the link you provided and is in agreement with what I typed. The Vitamin D may help prevent (presumably because of the stronger immune system effect) cv19 in an indirect sense but is not directly prevent cv19. Its what the material provided by BS says and it is what the links you post say. May help prevent is not the same as will prevent and no where is the claim made to cure.

"Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection—particularly in Black patients—or lead to less severe outcomes, two new US studies suggest."
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:38 pm

.

Prevention -- by fortifying one's natural immunity -- is the best defense we can expect, Puf. There is no 'cure' for any virus.

The larger issue underscored by these -- and other --findings is that there are a number of readily accessible, and relatively safe, treatments available that are generally suppressed, in contrast to the hard push for vaccination (via 'vaccines' that have yet to be FDA approved, have less than a year of trials, and have known side effects that include near-term death), which may soon be outright mandated --- all for a virus the remains highly survivable (over 99% for most humans), and for many infected, mild or no symptoms.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Grizzly » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:39 am

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26708324
Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection (cdc.gov)
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:00 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^

From Yahoo News:


It’s time to unplug the sanitizing robots and put away the bottles of Clorox that seem to line the entrances to every school, restaurant and supermarket wanting to advertise its safety protocols. While such protocols may be reassuring to an anxious populace, they are not necessary, says a revised guidance issued on Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low,” the new CDC guidance says, estimating that the chance of contracting the coronavirus through surface transmission is lower than 1 in 10,000.

The coronavirus is spread almost exclusively by airborne and aerosolized particles, as scientists have known for months. Despite scientists’ growing certitude about how the pathogen is transmitted, many establishments have continued to insist on strict sanitization protocols. In some school districts, for example, classrooms close for full-day “deep cleaning.”

The persistence of such practices has led to the advent of a derisive term — “hygiene theater” — to describe rituals that appear to do little to stop the virus from spreading. It is not clear if the CDC’s new guidance will lower the curtain on those theatrics, given how entrenched some of those practices have become.

“If we took half the effort that’s being given to disinfection, and we put it on ventilation, that will be huge,” University of Colorado atmospheric chemist Jose-Luis Jimenez told the scientific publication Nature for an article published last month.



"Hygiene Theater", indeed. An apt phrase for 2020 - 2021.

https://news.yahoo.com/end-the-hygiene- ... 40864.html
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SARS Cov 2: Science-only thread

Postby Karmamatterz » Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:39 pm

Prevention -- by fortifying one's natural immunity -- is the best defense we can expect, Puf. There is no 'cure' for any virus.

The larger issue underscored by these -- and other --findings is that there are a number of readily accessible, and relatively safe, treatments available that are generally suppressed, in contrast to the hard push for vaccination (via 'vaccines' that have yet to be FDA approved, have less than a year of trials, and have known side effects that include near-term death), which may soon be outright mandated --- all for a virus the remains highly survivable (over 99% for most humans), and for many infected, mild or no symptoms.


Good points.

It is quite interesting how the big pharma "solution" is the only thing you ever hear of. Very interesting that off the shelf remedies or old treatments for malaria are shunned in favor of experimental drugs from big pharma. It's also fascinating to read in that vaccine thread how some people defend vaccines so strongly one could wonder if they are paid to do so.

How many times did the beloved Dr. FlipFlop Fawchee suggest to people they should exercise? Get fresh air? Get sunshine? Take simple supplements like vitamin D or C?

How about just lose some weight and try not to be so obese? Maybe improve your health by changing your diet so that if you're at risk for diabetes you can prevent it? How about stop smoking? If I can do it anyone can.

It's simple science right? Getting sunshine creates natural vitamin D, but why suggest something free when you can get your buddies as big pharma another contract for more doses of X. Follow the money in the drug industry.

Does anyone even notice this is going on? The debates about the "virus" and "science" behind it can rage, but where are the debates about exercise and diet? Two of the most important things to consider for health and they are grossly ignored. Wonder if perhaps it's because Dr. FlipFlop has a financial interest in big pharma? But just ignore that tidbit for a moment.

Since death is a big part of this science discussion has anyone looked at the ongoing debate in the medical field for deaths caused by doctors? There is a very heated debate that started a few years ago over how to count medical deaths. These deaths caused by accident, drugs or negligence are covered up by the white coats and compliant media. If the medical establishment cannot figure out how to count deaths from people they kill, how does anyone in their right mind think these same people are telling us the truth about how they count a "covid" death? Or how they allow the media to continue falsely reporting "cases" or "infections?"
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests