but quinn over misreading a grammatical structure
🇳🇱
@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
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.
>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.
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.
Ok.. funny its almost as if I dont care about the opinion of a emotionally constantly triggered sewer rat... who woulda thunk.
