The Flu has VANISHED; Covid=Flu?

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Premium
Messages
6,824
I understand, Harte, and my comment was more facetious than serious. However, you must admit that many of the restrictions currently in place are rather arbitrary. (One glaring example being that grouping together without masks leads to "super-spreader" events -- unless it is a BLM protest/riot.)

If the restrictions worked, we'd have very few alleged "cases".

Humans weren't meant to live in a cave. We get viruses. Our bodies fight them off. The weak and vulnerable die. It is nature. It has been happening for centuries. Same with "global warming". Humans must adapt as we have been doing for thousands of years.

Besides, the survival rate is beyond 94% now I believe, and we have the new Regeneron cocktail, an alleged vaccine (that I won't take), etc.
There is no need to shut down the world. Zero need whatsoever.

All for the flu, which does kill.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
3,892
If that stuff works for the flu, why do we still have Covid cases? You believe that stuff has brought flu cases down to zero but do not work for Covid 19? Then why do we bother?
If water vapor gets through a mask (which is demonstrated in many videos), how is Covid different? Does it not travel via water droplets?
Vapor is a gas, and still even a lot of vapor is captured in a mask through condensation.
Droplets literally fly from your mouth every time you speak. They won't pass through a mask.
You talking to a doctor or two certainly doesn't bring flu cases down to zero you know.

If masks and lock down work, why are there still covid cases?
You know perfectly well that masks cannot possibly prevent all spreading and that masks are used to lessen the impact, not remove it.
Yours is a straw man argument then.
Research Event 201.

Plan a pandemic. Rename the flu to Covid 19 as the test subject. See how the sheep respond.
to zero?

Bill Gates involved in Event 201 AND the alleged vaccine. You do not find that suspicious?
Johns Hopkins has run those types of events before. Why weren't there pandemics after those?
Are you saying you'd prefer research institutes NOT to simulate pandemics to help with preparedness?
You should realize that there have been several actual epidemic events over the last couple of decades. We are to ignore those so that they don't feed your paranoia?

I won't waste my time digging into really dumb conspiracy theories.

Harte
 

start at edge

Member
Messages
396
HA! I just got a news alert on my watch --- they are telling people they must still wear a mask and hide even if they get the vaccine.

Total BS.
I kindly ask you, as well as anyone else (so please spread the word), to keep in mind, each of us in the area (country, state, city, district, …) where we live, who those are asking such things (like still wearing a mask and hiding, regardless if having the vaccine or not) – because we will definitely need to know. At some point, in some places, the “authorities” will impose the vaccine by law (and by raw force) – those we also must keep in mind who exactly they are. Those devils who are in charge of this mad hoax, failed to recognize who actually is on their side, instead they gave us the precise hint to recognize who their henchmen are, so please remember them, even make a list and keep it somewhere safe (written on paper, saved on computer or whatever).
 

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Premium
Messages
6,824
Vapor is a gas, and still even a lot of vapor is captured in a mask through condensation.
Droplets literally fly from your mouth every time you speak. They won't pass through a mask.
You talking to a doctor or two certainly doesn't bring flu cases down to zero you know.

Many of the cheap surgical masks and cloth masks have gaps on the sides and front. There is always the possibility of something escaping or entering.

You talking to a doctor or two doesn't bring flu cases down to zero

I've asked others to ask around as well as a form of research.

Are you saying you'd prefer research institutes NOT to simulate pandemics to help with preparedness?

Using pandemic exercises to shut down the economy and attempt to destroy a president is morally wrong in my opinion.

You should realize that there have been several actual epidemic events over the last couple of decades. We are to ignore those so that they don't feed your paranoia?

No. We didn't shut down the world and panic for H1N1 and humanity survived, didn't it? We didn't shut down the world and panic for SARS and humanity survived, didn't it? The paranoia is on the side of the people that are now scared of a virus that has over a 94% survival rate. (94 was the last number I saw, so I don't know if it is higher now).

I do not trust government or CDC. Sorry. Never will.
 

Witch Hunt

Active Member
Messages
941
Covid is not the flu. There is no reason to think they wouldn't just call it influenza if it was.

Really? Before I go in on this, we have to admit that Covid deaths are or will be monetized. Meaning, will health facilities be reimbursed for their Covid expenses. No one is talking about this because it is standard practice to do this. During the Aids crisis, hundreds of hospitals, clinics and hospices got grants for equipment, research grants or straight cash for reimbursements. SARS, MERSA? Same thing just not to the extent of the Aids crisis. So if you think there is not a monetary component to this "crisis", you are being naive.

Now, what about all of the cases of false positives in Covid testing...
You do understand how easy it is to get a false positive Covid result?
These rates may sound low, but when the rate of infection is low, even a small false-positive rate can greatly diminish the reliability of positive test results. For example, consider the scenario diagrammed below, in which 100,000 people are tested, with 1 percent, or 1,000 of them, being infected. If the false-negative rate is 25 percent, a typical estimate from the scientific literature on COVID-19, and the false positive rate is 0.5 percent, a reasonable estimate from our data, then a quarter of the 1,000 samples from infected individuals – that is, 250 samples – will be false negatives, and the rest will be true positives.

The false positives and true negatives are calculated in the diagram in the same way. In the lower part of the diagram, these figures are used to calculate that the percentage of negative results that are false is 0.25 percent, and the percentage of positive results that are false is nearly 40 percent.
cohen 1


So, with a 1-percent infection rate in the test population, a false-positive rate of only 0.5 percent leads to nearly 40 percent of the positive results being wrong. And although the false-negative rate is 50 times higher than the false-positive rate, it is nevertheless much more likely (nearly 160 times more likely) that a positive result will be wrong than a negative result will be wrong. Notice that this doesn't align with what most health authorities have been telling us, which is that we can trust a positive PCR result as proof that we're definitely infected, but that we can't rely on a negative result as proof that we're not infected. In fact, just the opposite is true – negative results are reliable and positive results are not – when the infection rate is low.

Now let's talk about sensitivity....
Why coronavirus tests may be too sensitive
But further complicating the matter, according to some experts, is that many commonly used tests for the novel coronavirus are too sensitive, so they generate positive results when patients are carrying low loads of the virus, Mandavilli reports.

According to Mandavilli, many coronavirus tests have fairly high cycle thresholds, with most set at 40 and some set at 37. That means a number of patients who aren't carrying much of the new coronavirus are still testing positive, even though they may not be contagious, Mandavilli reports.

Mina explained that tests with high cycle thresholds could be detecting genetic fragments of the virus, or pieces of the virus that are leftover from a previous infection that don't pose any current transmission risk.

So, with that out of the way, let's talk about the tally...

Discrepancy in COVID-19 numbers arises due to 'probable' cases

SAN ANTONIO — Right now there’s a discrepancy in the numbers reported by Metro Health and those reported by the State Health Department.

The State Health Department has removed more than 3,000 cases classified as ‘probable’ from the Bexar County and state totals, which puts our local cases at over 17,000.

Those are cases confirmed with ‘antigen’ or mouth swab tests.

San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg tried to review the discrepancies on Social Media.

During Wednesday’s briefing the City announced a case total of 21,546.

That would include those 3,000 antigen cases.

Mayor Nirenberg said, he was not aware those cases had been removed from the state website.

Of those cases, 475 were reported Wednesday. Meanwhile there are seven new deaths reported, which puts our local death toll now at 208.

In short, there is every reason to think that certain people can and will take advantage of this situation. If you can't at the very least admit that the possibility of a scam exists, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
 


Top