@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.
To put some specific numbers on it the transmission rate (Beta) in february for omicron was ~0.06, for delta in feb it was ~0.11
My understanding is that Delta was the most virulent. So it went from wild-Alpha-Beta-Delta. That's mutating from a less lethal strain to a more lethal strain. It has demonstrated that it can mutate to a more lethal strain.
Also, I think Omicron is more virulent than Alpha (not sure), which is the lineage for Omicron strain (Omicron came from the Alpha strain, not via Delta).
Epidemiologist have warned about the posibility of COVID-19 mutating to a very deadly strain.
No otherway around, omicron is in fact the least deadly yet most virulent of the strains, making it dominant. Delta by comparison is 4.7x more deadly than omicron and all variants collectively are about 10x higher mortality rate than omicron,
Here is the quote about that from a study done earlier this year:
We estimated the lethality of the different variants by using their average death rates. For Delta, Omicron, and other variants in aggregate, these are 0.0020, , and 0.0022 in South Africa (Figures 1B, D, F), respectively. There, Delta's death rate is 2.3 times that of Omicron, whereas the death rate of the variants other than Delta and Omicron is 1.1 times and 2.5 times those of Delta and Omicron, respectively. In the United States, we found that the death rates of Delta, Omicron, and the other variants are, in order, , , and 0.0019 (Figures B2B, D, F). There, the death rate of Delta is 4.7 times that of Omicron, and the death rate of the other variants is 10.8 times that of Omicron. In Canada, the death rate of Delta is , whereas this is for Omicron and 0.0014 for the other variants (Figures B3B, D, F). Delta's death rate in Canada is higher than that of Omicron by a factor of 3.1; for the other variants, this factor is 7.4. The previously mentioned analysis shows that Delta and especially Omicron have lower death rates than previous variants.
When I say virulent, I mean more malignant, not necessarilly more contagous.
Delta was most deadly. It caused more severe illness and death per infection.
And I'm referring to the activity of the virus, not how treatment improved over time.
@icedquinn
Yes and so was the study. Thats why it was conducted in a region with poor medical facilities, to ensure the numbers dont reflect high-end medical treatment.
To quote the most relevant part of the study: "The previously mentioned analysis shows that Delta and especially Omicron have lower death rates than previous variants."
>"I disagree with you though, wearing resperators is beyond bonkers to me. People die.. wash your hands, take some good practices sure, but wearing hazmat, no, lol, just no. You will never find me encouraging people to wear full on respirators out in public..."
This is what I am talking about. People are ignorant. They don't even know a respirator is.
Here's a picture of a respirator. The study said that if just 40% of people wore these N95 respirators at the beginning of the pandemic, it would have stopped it in its tracks.
And the reason why you don't know what a respirator is (they come in all forms -- from a filtering facepiece all the way up to a SCBA), is because the CDC and others who were supposed to inform the public blocked the distribution of this life-saving information.
Why are you assuming I dont know what a respirator is? What are you on about. Of course I know what they are, who the hell doesnt?
Let me get this straight...
You think it's laughable that a million people are dead and that's ok because you think wearing an N95 or N100 mask to save all those lives is silly?
Man are your priorities fucked up.
Well for starters as I said I dont even think respirators would have prevented the deaths, in fact I suspect they would have increased the death toll as we have discussed.
But even if we assume it would have prevented a million deaths, if that is at the cost of 7 - 8 billion people needing to wear respirators, then yes, that is madness.
It gets even worse when you consider how that plays out long term.. If respirators are effective at best it puts the pandemic on pause, and the pandemic just kicks off when people stop using respirators again (especially since the vaccine is proven now not to stop transmission).
So we are talking about the whole world wearing respirators for the rest of their lives vs not wearing them and having an epidemic that lasts a year or two and then effectively goes down to being less lethal than the flu after that time... So taking that hit over 2 years is by far much more prefered than wearing respirators for the rest of our lives.
>"But even if we assume it would have prevented a million deaths, if that is at the cost of 7 - 8 billion people needing to wear respirators, then yes, that is madness."
Well, I don't know what to say to that. You're a fucking psychopath.
I'd say the same about you if you think people need to wear low-end hazmat equipment for the rest of their lives to prevent a pandemic that would be over in a year or two otherwise otherwise.
Thats not an ok trade off. By those numbers your talking about 8000 people wearing respirators for their entire life to prevent a single death.
Plus the fact that all youve done is delay the pandemic, so it would still happen, AND now youve introduced auto-immune diseases in addition over that time period.
