but quinn over misreading a grammatical structure
๐ณ๐ฑ
@icedquinn It wasnt about the gramatical structure, it was about the incorrect facts it inferred (which were still incorrect once you corrected your wording).
@icedquinn Either way, your statement was incorrect.. there is no meaningful link between SAr-COV-2 and the common cold
i said the ones we know about have a lot of mutations, therefore inferred they are highly mutatable.
@icedquinn @freemo
@freemo
Actually coronavirus and all RNA viruses mutate **faster** than DNA viruses.. its just that recombination isnt considered a mutation so DNA viruses **adapt** quicker without relying on mutations (as in novel genes)
what is the expectation? are they going to put everyone back in to lockdown every time a mutation is found (which there will always be one) until they can rush a new EUA and just keep people on an indefinite chain of experimental vaccines?
Two seperate topics here.. 1) the discussion around how likely and common it will be for the CV to circumvent vaccines and 2) what procedure saves the most lives when there is an outbreak.
To #1, we should be pretty good. Its always a crap shoot but even against current variants like the delta variant the vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%). so in reality people are over reacting over it. As long as people are getting vaccinated they are pretty safe
As for #2, lockdowns were never an effective solution even before it mutated. We had contagion guidelines in place long before CV and while quarantine was a part of it, that only carried so far as to when the virus is in a isolated geographic location. All traditional advice when it comes to contagion suggests that once a virus is out into the wild that lockdowns cause greater loss of life and are not effective at reducing the total long term body count.
So considering lockdown as a viable solution has never been a good idea.
Ivermectin is actually effective against CoV2 and it substantially safer than the novel mRNA injectables.
they also get every benefit of the doubt for some reason making everyone drag them through hell just to admit okay maybe actually the heart complications were real but only because we could find literally nothing to punt the symptoms on to.
@freemo @allison @thatbrickster
@allison @freemo @thatbrickster
i had heard mRNAs failed animal trials in the past.
@allison @freemo @thatbrickster
apparently even the press is in on it, since there was another anchor defect to Veritas testifying the networks ban hosts from interviewing anyone who uses a non-vaccine solution
I don't think anything coming out at this point really even matters
@djsumdog @icedquinn @freemo @allison @thatbrickster Too bad Ivermectin is not OTC. I heard that Garlic is effective at combating it. People really underestimate the power of natural healing herbs.
in the US even with a prescription the pharmacies were in on the scam. they just refused to fill them.
@djsumdog @freemo @allison @thatbrickster
i don't care as much about them doing the research as i do the ass covering after the fact. we know from Veritas that FB is circulating memos to ban "true facts and events" so not only are you not allowed to mention potential treatments as a licensed doctor risking your MD, but you're not even allowed to talk about legitimate vaers reports.
@allison @freemo @thatbrickster @xianc78
>vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%).
post some evidence for this. hint: you don't have any.
correct the CDC and WHO's crap numbers and you'll find that the vaccine is far more dangerous than the virus itself.
Hint: I do
let me know if you need me to dig up the peer-reviewed study this article references.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses
@meowski @icedquinn @allison
registration required... if someone is registered and wants to get me the study i'll read it with an open mind
but i'm not going to jump through any hoops to find it
thats fine, I cant change the unfortunate paywall system research uses to fund itself. But yes the evidence is there.
*that publishers force on anyone trying to do anything useful
True but they have to pay for their overhead costs somehow. Want to see more open-access papers, push for more tax-payer funded research (which often means open-access).
Usually the people complaining about paywalls are the same people who think scientific studies should be privately funded.
well one thing we can all agree on is that publicly funded research shouldn't be behind paywalls
Aye, I'm sure a "journal" (content aggregator) has such high overhead they need to charge $30/paper on public research (that the authors will often give for free if you ask nicely)
I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just frustrated at defense of capitalizing of free information
No worries, I didnt take it as an attack. I side with your sentiments, just pointing out studies cost money to make so someone has to pay for it somehow.
The aggregator isnt the one getting 100% of that money. They have to pay back to the journal, which has to pay its peer-reviewers, editors, and authors.
if it's anything like the other studies they're using this slimy "x% effective at reducing symptoms" measure which is basically meaningless beacuse you can still transmit the virus
if a vaccine is highly effective the infection isn't going to linger and stay latent for any significant amount of time while you pass it on to others
its not meaningless, it just serves a different purpose that transmissibility.
Being effective against symptoms means you probably wont die and getting the virus will be non consequential. If the vast majority of people are all vaccinated that means having the vaccine will significantly reduce death rates even if it doesn't reduce transmissibility.
If you want to study the vaccines ability to reduce transmissibility that is a different measure and useful in different ways. Namely, if measuring the likelihood of eradication, which would be nice, but not entirely necessary to see some level of success.
you already "probably won't die"
as i said, when you correct the numbers for the overblown PCR tests and the under-reported vaccine adverse events, the vaccines are around 10x more likely to kill you than the virus
the end. it's garbage
Can you show me the paper you wrote that demonstrates those numbers and what criticisms it has drawn from others who had a chance to review your theories?
no time for your appeals to authority. this should be plainly obvious. the paper i wrote is my fedi timeline going back the previous year. the peers are anyone who reads it
have a nice day
even from the press release you can tell they're being slimy:
"both vaccines were 33% effective against symptomatic disease from B.1.617.2"
when they say symptomatic disease this introduces a very subjective and non-quantitiative variable with a LOT of wiggle room to fudge the data.
the press release language is ambiguous- both vaccines were 33% effective is a non-sequiter.
also 33% at preventing subjective symptoms? what about preventing ACTUAL INFECTION
pure trash
@allison @freemo @icedquinn
@allison @freemo @icedquinn
I can tell you that when I had reviewed it last I had to go through a paywall.
@icedquinn @meowski @allison
Also, why shift the goalposts? Your initial argument was against quinn's claim that this is already endemic and forever part of society because the rate at which the virus mutates will be faster than the rate at which we can come up with vaccines. This is a fact, SARS-CoV-2 is endemic, it's too late to do anything about it except find a treatment (Ivermectin looks promising)
Granted, your reply was filled with pedantry, grammar nazism, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and bullshit, so I don't expect anything more from you.
Which goal posts did I set exactly? I dont recall ever stating anything about eradication.
Not ignoring your attempts at discussion. Though i do know from past discussion you are incapable of being level headed and mature. So I put less value in engaging you to some degree for sure.
I didnt ignore his first points, I did misunderstand them. It only took a few messages before he pointed out what he meant and I apologized and said he was right.
Just gonna ignore that part huh? And you wonder why i devalued your contribution to discussions.
