@Pat It’s as if COVID in 2022 is dramatically different from COVID in 2020….
🇳🇱
>" it stopped being more deadly when it became the democrat strain lmao"
When Trump took off his mask after barely recovering from COVID-19, the media went crazy.
Now Biden goes on a national TV talk show, takes his mask off in front of a large live audience and nobody says anything. It's even more dangerous now with the more contagous strains, and he knows better. But Biden ordered the media to stop talking about COVID-19 in February 2022 so it has nearly zero coverage now.
I agree with the politically motivated treatment of covid... more deadly, not so much. I am running a company that is in the COVID arena and we rely on sampling people with covid. We struggle to even get samples at all right now.
also, perhaps people are dying because all attempts at supplying treatment have been suppressed at all levels.
NIH own trial database shows ivermectin is quite useful. good luck getting a hospital to give it without court order.
>"it is not normal for them to become more deadly."
The COVID-19 virus has already demonstrated that it does that -- mutates to become more virulent, more deadly.
Thats false. While Omicron was, intitially, far more virulent it actually decreased significantly after its initial introduction to the population. As of February (the last good analysis I saw) omicron was in fact many orders of magnitude LESS virulant than delta was at that same time.
As for death rate, no, the death rate went down significantly not up. Partly due to it being easier to treat than other varients apparently.
Nah thats a hands down lie (but a common one). The whole idea of intentional and grossly negligent reporting of covid deaths doesnt stand up to rigorous investigation. I have been running these exact numbers professionally for a while now with a pretty decent budget and set of resources... its simply not true.
It literallyw as not.. They had different numbers they collected, there was a pool where the criteria were more relaxed where the numbers were "live" numbers. Then there were numbers that were far more rigerous that had a delay of months. This is perfectly normal practice and anyone dealing with the numbers knew what each meant.
there's also no priors to compare the numbers to so *even with a proper stricter reporting* which was wrong because labs were inconsistent but *assuming the corrected reduced values* were accurate there is nothing to compare them to.
there is no world where the reporting on this was anything but crap.
Again your wrong on the facts. They didnt **switch/88 to more rigorous numbers. The rigorous numbers from day one were collected along side the preliminary less rigorous numbers, as is common practice.
The cycle count isnt particularly relevant as the rigorous numbers require a clear indication that the **cause** of death is covid, not simply that they test positive for covid,
