Colin Powell, military leader and first Black US secretary of state, dies

[Paradoxical]

Yes you posted PART of what I said
and we see that you didn't bother to read all of my post
seems you missed this
so when you post something from an outside source and don't provide a link or a citation with the original author you are breaking the rules , most people on here let it go but will ask for a link ( that is right from YOUR post )
as I asked " doesn't that say " MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author."
and you said you don't post links so aren't you breaking the TOS
so your suppose to provide links when you use info from another source and it is nice to if when you are asked to back up something you say somebody else said
Have a nice day

I said the same thing you did. You don't read well. I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. Scroll back. Please pay attention.

 

[Tbird19482]

I said the same thing you did. You don't read well. I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. Scroll back. Please pay attention.

YOU are the one that needs to " Pay attention"
in YOUR post 651 it DOES say you MUST
you just posted , and you can read above that you said it didn't say MUST
Here is what YOU posted
All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.
the 12th word in that sentence is MUST and it comes right after ( external material )
so you not only can't read and you are lying and you also break the TOS all the time when you don't post links
so take your own advise and PAY ATTENTION
Have a nice day

 

[RealityChecker]

You have not made that case. For Dr Lonnidis's numbers to be right, with the number of people who died in the U.S already, we would have to have had a population of over 700M , and every one would have needed to have been infected.

We only have 328M, and not everyone has caught covid.

Actually, Dr. Ioannidis article estimated the IFR for SARS-CoV2 at 0.15% is based on the world's population. Because the US population is older and has far more people with illnesses that increase the risk of death if infected with SARS it is likely the IFR is higher than that seen in most other countries. I believe, Dr. Ioannidis's study [the first to use sereological testing to estimate the number of people who had been infected with SARS-CoV2] of people living in Santa Clara originally estimated the IFR at 0.17%, but based on some valid criticism of their methodology ended up being closer to 0.25%. Keep in mind that we were looking at the IFR back in March and early April of 2020 when no one was vaccinated, MDs had few effective strategies and no proven drugs to treat very sick people back then. So the IFR (the risk of dying if infected) is no doubt much lower today than it was back in early 2020.

Now the study by Meyerowitz-Katz was also looking at the IFR back before there was many viable options to prevent and treat SARS-CoV2 infections. His estimated IFR was 0.68% back then. In hindsight Dr. Ioannidis may have under estimated the IFR and Meyerowitz-Katz may have overestimated it. Hindsight is better than foresight and the IFR today is almost certainly been cut by at least 2-3-fold thanks to vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies, medical use of corticosteroids, anti-clotting drugs, proning the patient, etc.. Keep in mind that most Americans have had the flu and/or multiple flu shots and we have Tamiflu and other treatments MDs have long been familiar with that make the IFR far lower. Now that is also the case for SARS-CoV2 so my estimate that its IFR is likely now similar to that of a typical flu is likely reasonable. Of course, with the much higher R0 a far greater number of Americans have been infected with SARS-CoV2 than with the flu so even with a similar IFR we still have seen far more people infected and so that leads to more deaths even though the odds of dying if infected (IFR) are similar. Indeed, so many Americans have been infected and/or vaccinated now against the Wuhan virus that I suspect 2022 will see far fewer deaths with COVID-19.

 

[RAMOSS]

Actually, Dr. Ioannidis article estimated the IFR for SARS-CoV2 at 0.15% is based on the world's population. Because the US population is older and has far more people with illnesses that increase the risk of death if infected with SARS it is likely the IFR is higher than that seen in most other countries. I believe, Dr. Ioannidis's study [the first to use sereological testing to estimate the number of people who had been infected with SARS-CoV2] of people living in Santa Clara originally estimated the IFR at 0.17%, but based on some valid criticism of their methodology ended up being closer to 0.25%. Keep in mind that we were looking at the IFR back in March and early April of 2020 when no one was vaccinated, MDs had few effective strategies and no proven drugs to treat very sick people back then. So the IFR (the risk of dying if infected) is no doubt much lower today than it was back in early 2020.

Now the study by Meyerowitz-Katz was also looking at the IFR back before there was many viable options to prevent and treat SARS-CoV2 infections. His estimated IFR was 0.68% back then. In hindsight Dr. Ioannidis may have under estimated the IFR and Meyerowitz-Katz may have overestimated it. Hindsight is better than foresight and the IFR today is almost certainly been cut by at least 2-3-fold thanks to vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies, medical use of corticosteroids, anti-clotting drugs, proning the patient, etc.. Keep in mind that most Americans have had the flu and/or multiple flu shots and we have Tamiflu and other treatments MDs have long been familiar with that make the IFR far lower. Now that is also the case for SARS-CoV2 so my estimate that its IFR is likely now similar to that of a typical flu is likely reasonable. Of course, with the much higher R0 a far greater number of Americans have been infected with SARS-CoV2 than with the flu so even with a similar IFR we still have seen far more people infected and so that leads to more deaths even though the odds of dying if infected (IFR) are similar. Indeed, so many Americans have been infected and/or vaccinated now against the Wuhan virus that I suspect 2022 will see far fewer deaths with COVID-19.

700K deaths so far.. and I suspect many were not counted.

Gosh, if he was right, we would have only 70K deaths now.

 

[RealityChecker]

700K deaths so far.. and I suspect many were not counted.

Well 770K I believe is closer to the official number. The main reason Dr. Ioannidis missed the deaths with COVID-19 count was because he was estimating it was no more infectious than the flu. We saw deaths with COVID-19 declining precipitously this spring and the pandemic may well have been mostly gone now except for the mutant delta strain that had a far greater R0 and so spread rapidly through the US population this summer and now accounts for nearly all news cases in the US. Indeed, if not for the delta strain we would likely have had far fewer Americans infected and dying even though the IFR appears to have an IFR similar to the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain we had last spring and summer.

No doubt some cases were missed. However, given the financial incentives and political pressure to over diagnose CoVID-19, my guess is the actual deaths caused primarily by SARS-CoV2 could net-net be higher than if the deaths were counted as they are for the flu.

Gosh, if he was right, we would have only 70K deaths now.

Well if Dr. Niels Ferguson estimate of an IFR of 0.9% had been correct and his prediction that 81% of the population would get infected and the result would likely be an estimated death toll of well over 2 million Americans. And others were estimating the IFR from 1 to 6.5% back in March and April of 2020. It was these predictions that that convinced Trump and most governors to do those lockdowns back in April and early May.

Too bad Dr. Ioannidis was not right about the Wuhan virus only infecting 1% of Americans and killing only 0.17% of those infected. But Drs. Fauci and Brix convinced Trump unless he did the lockdowns millions of Americans would die. Apparently the "smart money" put more faith in the lower IFR than the higher IFR estimates, which may be why the stock market bottomed on March 23, 2020. The next day on March 24th the DJIA was up over 11%!!! Makes me wonder what they were hearing that the POTUS and most other Americans were hearing about the likely course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Food For Thought

 

[RAMOSS]

Well 770K I believe is closer to the official number. The main reason Dr. Ioannidis missed the deaths with COVID-19 count was because he was estimating it was no more infectious than the flu. We saw deaths with COVID-19 declining precipitously this spring and the pandemic may well have been mostly gone now except for the mutant delta strain that had a far greater R0 and so spread rapidly through the US population this summer and now accounts for nearly all news cases in the US. Indeed, if not for the delta strain we would likely have had far fewer Americans infected and dying even though the IFR appears to have an IFR similar to the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain we had last spring and summer.

No doubt some cases were missed. However, given the financial incentives and political pressure to over diagnose CoVID-19, my guess is the actual deaths caused primarily by SARS-CoV2 could net-net be higher than if the deaths were counted as they are for the flu.

Well if Dr. Niels Ferguson estimate of an IFR of 0.9% had been correct and his prediction that 81% of the population would get infected and the result would likely be an estimated death toll of well over 2 million Americans. And others were estimating the IFR from 1 to 6.5% back in March and April of 2020. It was these predictions that that convinced Trump and most governors to do those lockdowns back in April and early May.

Too bad Dr. Ioannidis was not right about the Wuhan virus only infecting 1% of Americans and killing only 0.17% of those infected. But Drs. Fauci and Brix convinced Trump unless he did the lockdowns millions of Americans would die. Apparently the "smart money" put more faith in the lower IFR than the higher IFR estimates, which may be why the stock market bottomed on March 23, 2020. The next day on March 24th the DJIA was up over 11%!!! Makes me wonder what they were hearing that the POTUS and most other Americans were hearing about the likely course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Food For Thought

And, it's deadlier, particuarly with the delta variant.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Well I already explained he was very wrong about the % of US population to be infected. He estimated 1% or about bit more that 3 million people, but in reality it is likely now more 150 million people. So with the same IFR we'd see about 50X more deaths.

Actually, I do not see a big difference between the virulence of SARS-CoV2 and the typical flu. Here's a recent study that suggests the impact of the flu on CVD might be greater than we thought. A lot of those also occur just after they recover from the flu so likely would make the IFR of the seasonal flu a bit higher too. More here:

Flu and heart disease: The surprising connection that should convince you to schedule your shot

Patients who have cardiovascular disease are at increased risk of serious complications from the flu, according to a new study. The study found that not only are traditional flu-related outcomes worse among some patients with CVD, but infection in those patients also is associated with an...

www.sciencedaily.com

If you don’t see a big difference the. You aren’t paying attention.

Mini organs reveal how the coronavirus ravages the body

The virus can damage lung, liver and kidney tissue grown in the lab, which might explain some severe COVID-19 complications in people.

www.nature.com

AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Paradoxical]

YOU are the one that needs to " Pay attention"
in YOUR post 651 it DOES say you MUST
you just posted , and you can read above that you said it didn't say MUST
Here is what YOU posted
All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.
the 12th word in that sentence is MUST and it comes right after ( external material )
so you not only can't read and you are lying and you also break the TOS all the time when you don't post links
so take your own advise and PAY ATTENTION
Have a nice day

Why is it you left out the last paragraph of my post? Are you really that disingenuou?

 

[RealityChecker]

And, it's deadlier, particuarly with the delta variant.

Actually, as far as I know there is not much evidence the SARS-CoV2 delta variant has a higher IFR 0or is more virulent or deadly) than the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain. The main difference appears to be that the delta strain mutation gives it a much higher R0 than does the original SARS-CoV2.

Of course, a virus that is far more contagious will ultimately infect more people over a short period of time which is why we see the much sharper peaks in communities where the delta variant gets a foothold even though a lot of the people in those communities have naturally acquired immunity and/or vaccine acquired immunity. The much greater ability of the delta strain to rapidly multiply in the upper airways compared to the older strains appears to be what allows the delta strain to markedly increase the amount of viral particles being released when people, cough, sneeze, sing, talk, and even breath. This is why it has such a high R0 of 6-7. This far more rapid ramp up of viral production in the upper airways does not appear to make it more deadly but mostly just far more contagious. It is also why it can infect and spread even in people who are vaccinated or have already been infected with earlier strains.

 

[RealityChecker]

If you don’t see a big difference the. You aren’t paying attention.

Mini organs reveal how the coronavirus ravages the body

The virus can damage lung, liver and kidney tissue grown in the lab, which might explain some severe COVID-19 complications in people.

www.nature.com

AAAS

www.science.org

I am not sure what your point is here. Clearly the influenza virus is different from the Wuhan virus. So it is going to infect the body in ways that are similar to other respiratory viruses (e.g. colds & flu). It also appears deadlier (higher IFR) in older and sicker people than the flu. But the flu has a higher IFR (or is deadlier) in children. So I am not sure what it is you believe I am unaware of? Could you be more specific? Thanks

 

[Tbird19482]

Why is it you left out the last paragraph of my post? Are you really that disingenuou?

you mean where you said "I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. In the past, more than a few posters here have slapped up a link, I broke my rule and read it, and the link doesn't support their positions. Then it's a back and forth time waster where the poster says "Yes, it does" and the reader saying, "No, it doesn't." I've been there, done that. No more."
You stated that it did NOT say you MUST post a link in your post #676 ( "I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. ) and here is what it said " All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source"
does it or does it NOT say you MUST post a link if you are posting something from another source?
and NO it doesn't say you have to ( MUST ) post 2 or 3 paragraphs but it DOES say you need to post a link
and then in that paragraph you make my point for me again you said "Admittedly it doesn't say you must include 2 or 3 paragraphs but if someone doesn't, how is the reader supposed to know that the link confirms the opinions and/or points the poster is trying to make?"
and IF you remember my point was YOU need to post links so the reader knows that the link confirms what you posted. ( at least after some other poster asks you to )
so YOU either are lying about what it says or YOU CAN'T READ
Have a nice day

 

[Paradoxical]

you mean where you said "I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. In the past, more than a few posters here have slapped up a link, I broke my rule and read it, and the link doesn't support their positions. Then it's a back and forth time waster where the poster says "Yes, it does" and the reader saying, "No, it doesn't." I've been there, done that. No more."
You stated that it did NOT say you MUST post a link in your post #676 ( "I even highlighted the fact that it didn't say MUST. ) and here is what it said " All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source"
does it or does it NOT say you MUST post a link if you are posting something from another source?
and NO it doesn't say you have to ( MUST ) post 2 or 3 paragraphs but it DOES say you need to post a link
and then in that paragraph you make my point for me again you said "Admittedly it doesn't say you must include 2 or 3 paragraphs but if someone doesn't, how is the reader supposed to know that the link confirms the opinions and/or points the poster is trying to make?"
and IF you remember my point was YOU need to post links so the reader knows that the link confirms what you posted. ( at least after some other poster asks you to )
so YOU either are lying about what it says or YOU CAN'T READ
Have a nice day

It appears there is failure to communicate. My post clearly said that excerpts weren’t a must. Not sure what your problem is.

 

[Tbird19482]

It appears there is failure to communicate. My post clearly said that excerpts weren’t a must. Not sure what your problem is.

I never said a word about that
are you trying to change the subject
YOU said that it didn't say a person MUST post links if they use info from another source when it clearly does and when asked if you break the TOS you didn't answer and you indirectly said you did
YOU lie and now are trying to back track
done with this subject
back to the subject of the thread
Have a good night

 

[RAMOSS]

Actually, as far as I know there is not much evidence the SARS-CoV2 delta variant has a higher IFR 0or is more virulent or deadly) than the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain. The main difference appears to be that the delta strain mutation gives it a much higher R0 than does the original SARS-CoV2.

Of course, a virus that is far more contagious will ultimately infect more people over a short period of time which is why we see the much sharper peaks in communities where the delta variant gets a foothold even though a lot of the people in those communities have naturally acquired immunity and/or vaccine acquired immunity. The much greater ability of the delta strain to rapidly multiply in the upper airways compared to the older strains appears to be what allows the delta strain to markedly increase the amount of viral particles being released when people, cough, sneeze, sing, talk, and even breath. This is why it has such a high R0 of 6-7. This far more rapid ramp up of viral production in the upper airways does not appear to make it more deadly but mostly just far more contagious. It is also why it can infect and spread even in people who are vaccinated or have already been infected with earlier strains.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210830/delta-variant-doubles-hospitalization-risk-study​

COVID-19 and the delta variant: Which vaccines are effective?

In this article, we discuss what scientists know about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, first identified in India.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

However, the highest risks were from the Delta variant. In the Delta cases, there was a 108% increase in the risk of hospitalization, a 235% increased risk of ICU admission, and a 133% higher risk of death, compared with the original variant.

 

[Paradoxical]

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210830/delta-variant-doubles-hospitalization-risk-study​

COVID-19 and the delta variant: Which vaccines are effective?

In this article, we discuss what scientists know about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, first identified in India.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Why is it that hardly anyone includes excerpts of the articles they link to? I just don't get it.

 

[RealityChecker]

Why is it that hardly anyone includes excerpts of the articles they link to? I just don't get it.

Well it might be that when doing a GOOGLE search they are looking what appears to be evidence that seems to supports what they hope is true. Some here seem eager to post something that conflicts with something I have posted. Why? I suspect most have figured out I am far better than they are at determining what the published research does and does not tell us in most likely reality. For example we see RAMOSS rather cryptic short comment below:

And, it's deadlier, particuarly with the delta variant.

What is his point? It's deadlier than what? My guess is RAMOSS still wants to pretend the IFR of the Wuhan virus is much higher than that of the seasonal flu. But he is being obtuse because he fears posting something can easily falsify. Of course, the IFR is not etched in stone. It about 10,000X higher in the average 85y old American as in a 10 year old American. And over time the IFR typically falls, especially for new viruses. In general viruses mutate to have higher R0 and lower IFRs. Of course, the IFR of a virus declines also because vaccines and medical treatments also reduce the odds it will kill someone who gets infected. So the IFR typically drops, especially if the vaccines are effective, but also in response to MDs having more effective treatment options and gain more clinical experience. But we do know that viruses can occasionally mutate to have a higher IFR or be deadlier. So I responded to RAMOSS with this:

"Actually, as far as I know there is not much evidence the SARS-CoV2 delta variant has a higher IFR (or is more virulent or deadly) than the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain. The main difference appears to be that the delta strain mutation gives it a much higher R0 than does the original SARS-CoV2." RC

RAMOSS then responded in his Post #689 with what he thought was good evidence I was wrong. Note that I did not say there is no evidence suggesting the delta variant might be deadlier. I said as far as I know there is not much evidence it is deadlier and go on to explain the major problem with the delta variant s that is is far more contagious (or has a much higher R0) than the original Wuhan virus. But "not much" is not the same as "no evidence" is it? And even if the delta variant had a higher IFR that would not be why it so rapidly replaced the earlier versions of the Wuhan virus. Indeed, if it is more virulent this is actually a bad thing evolutionarily speaking, for a virus. FFT

 

[RAMOSS]

Well it might be that when doing a GOOGLE search they are looking what appears to be evidence that seems to supports what they hope is true. Some here seem eager to post something that conflicts with something I have posted. Why? I suspect most have figured out I am far better than they are at determining what the published research does and does not tell us in most likely reality. For example we see RAMOSS rather cryptic short comment below:

What is his point? It's deadlier than what? My guess is RAMOSS still wants to pretend the IFR of the Wuhan virus is much higher than that of the seasonal flu. But he is being obtuse because he fears posting something can easily falsify. Of course, the IFR is not etched in stone. It about 10,000X higher in the average 85y old American as in a 10 year old American. And over time the IFR typically falls, especially for new viruses. In general viruses mutate to have higher R0 and lower IFRs. Of course, the IFR of a virus declines also because vaccines and medical treatments also reduce the odds it will kill someone who gets infected. So the IFR typically drops, especially if the vaccines are effective, but also in response to MDs having more effective treatment options and gain more clinical experience. But we do know that viruses can occasionally mutate to have a higher IFR or be deadlier. So I responded to RAMOSS with this:

"Actually, as far as I know there is not much evidence the SARS-CoV2 delta variant has a higher IFR (or is more virulent or deadly) than the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain. The main difference appears to be that the delta strain mutation gives it a much higher R0 than does the original SARS-CoV2." RC

RAMOSS then responded in his Post #689 with what he thought was good evidence I was wrong. Note that I did not say there is no evidence suggesting the delta variant might be deadlier. I said as far as I know there is not much evidence it is deadlier and go on to explain the major problem with the delta variant s that is is far more contagious (or has a much higher R0) than the original Wuhan virus. But "not much" is not the same as "no evidence" is it? And even if the delta variant had a higher IFR that would not be why it so rapidly replaced the earlier versions of the Wuhan virus. Indeed, if it is more virulent this is actually a bad thing evolutionarily speaking, for a virus. FFT

Why, your repeating of falsehoods does not make it true.

I have you a source that shows that the fatility rate of delta is 133% of alpha. You ignore it. Such is life.

 

[RealityChecker]

Why, your repeating of falsehoods does not make it true.

I posted nothing that was false as far as I know.

I have you a source that shows that the fatility rate of delta is 133% of alpha. You ignore it. Such is life.

As I just explained above to Paradoxical in my Post#691, I am aware that there is some evidence that the IFR of the delta variant might be higher than the original SARS-CoV2. But so far there is simply not enough evidence to convince me that the IFR of the delta variant is really that much higher than earlier variants.

However, I remain open to that possibility. My main point was that the far greater issue with the delta variant is that the original Wuhan virus had a R0 = 2.4 and the delta variant R0 is likely 6 to 7. This makes it far more contagious and that is why it has largely replaced early mutants and also the main reason we are seeing those big spikes in new cases despite so many people being vaccinated and/or having naturally acquired immunity. Indeed, the delta variant often result in people with prior immunity shedding a lot more virus despite having no symptoms in those with prior immunity.

 

[Paradoxical]

Well it might be that when doing a GOOGLE search they are looking what appears to be evidence that seems to supports what they hope is true. Some here seem eager to post something that conflicts with something I have posted. Why? I suspect most have figured out I am far better than they are at determining what the published research does and does not tell us in most likely reality. For example we see RAMOSS rather cryptic short comment below:

What is his point? It's deadlier than what? My guess is RAMOSS still wants to pretend the IFR of the Wuhan virus is much higher than that of the seasonal flu. But he is being obtuse because he fears posting something can easily falsify. Of course, the IFR is not etched in stone. It about 10,000X higher in the average 85y old American as in a 10 year old American. And over time the IFR typically falls, especially for new viruses. In general viruses mutate to have higher R0 and lower IFRs. Of course, the IFR of a virus declines also because vaccines and medical treatments also reduce the odds it will kill someone who gets infected. So the IFR typically drops, especially if the vaccines are effective, but also in response to MDs having more effective treatment options and gain more clinical experience. But we do know that viruses can occasionally mutate to have a higher IFR or be deadlier. So I responded to RAMOSS with this:

"Actually, as far as I know there is not much evidence the SARS-CoV2 delta variant has a higher IFR (or is more virulent or deadly) than the original alpha SARS-CoV2 strain. The main difference appears to be that the delta strain mutation gives it a much higher R0 than does the original SARS-CoV2." RC

RAMOSS then responded in his Post #689 with what he thought was good evidence I was wrong. Note that I did not say there is no evidence suggesting the delta variant might be deadlier. I said as far as I know there is not much evidence it is deadlier and go on to explain the major problem with the delta variant s that is is far more contagious (or has a much higher R0) than the original Wuhan virus. But "not much" is not the same as "no evidence" is it? And even if the delta variant had a higher IFR that would not be why it so rapidly replaced the earlier versions of the Wuhan virus. Indeed, if it is more virulent this is actually a bad thing evolutionarily speaking, for a virus. FFT

Your post is why I no longer will respond to posts That do not include an excerpt to links the poster slaps up unless I feel like it and it is a slow day for me. I feel it is sneaky and disingenuous to just slap up a link with a headline which asserts "Here's my 'proof'. Now you go digging through the link to find it". As you say, a poster finds a headline, thinks the headline refutes what you say and posts it as a diversionary tactic because he or she really can't debate the facts. Time after time I have broken my own rules and viewed the link(s) and scratched my head as to why the poster slapped that link because either the link was the usual clickbait type headline a rag like The NY Times or WaPo puts out and contains no refutation of what you said, or the person who wrote the article flat out doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Now if you go back and read what I wrote I think you will realize I am not some irrational zealot but a guy who is far more interested in what is right (correct) than a guy who has been duped into believing things that are far right political nonsense.

My sense is you've already arrived at a conclusion you are trying to justify.

Even if you believe Covid is more infectious and but equivalently virulent compared to the flu, you should still be promoting vaccinations, mask-wearing, social-distancing, etc.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Hindsight is better than foresight and the IFR today is almost certainly been cut by at least 2-3-fold thanks to vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies, medical use of corticosteroids, anti-clotting drugs, proning the patient, etc..

1. This is a good thing.

2. If you believe this to be true, then why are you discouraging vaccination, and promoting anti-vaccination policies, and posting things which are generally dismissive of pandemic policies? The concern -- especially during the latest Delta wave -- is that too few people were getting vaccinated. And this was a result of a misunderstanding of the virus and the vaccine (it only kills people are just going to die soon anyway, the vaccine will turn you into a space alien, etc.).

 

[RealityChecker]

My sense is you've already arrived at a conclusion you are trying to justify.

Your sense of what motivates me is senseless. Deal with that reality.

Even if you believe Covid is more infectious and but equivalently virulent compared to the flu, you should still be promoting vaccinations, mask-wearing, social-distancing, etc.

I have been recommending that people at high risk of serious CoVID-19 get vaccinated all along. Again you seem more interested in pretending you know more about what I believe than I do. Somehow that seems unlikely to be reality.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Your sense of what motivates me is senseless. Deal with that reality.

It's not senseless. It might not be accurate. But it's not senseless.

I have been recommending that people at high risk of serious CoVID-19 get vaccinated all along. Again you seem more interested in pretending you know more about what I believe than I do. Somehow that seems unlikely to be reality.

Is it a true statement that you believe Covid-19 is not as dangerous as people think it is, and that as a result of this conclusion you believe many pandemic policies such as lockdowns, masks mandates, vaccine mandates are not warranted?

I think this is a true statement just based on the brief exchange we've had.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[RealityChecker]

2. If you believe this to be true, then why are you discouraging vaccination, and promoting anti-vaccination policies, and posting things which are generally dismissive of pandemic policies?

I am NOT and have never discouraged vaccinations for people who the scientific research shows will far more likely benefit than be harmed. I am dismissive of policies that are based on dubious ideas and that threaten people's individual liberty.

The concern -- especially during the latest Delta wave -- is that too few people were getting vaccinated. And this was a result of a misunderstanding of the virus and the vaccine (it only kills people are just going to die soon anyway, the vaccine will turn you into a space alien, etc.).

Actually, I am attempting to correct misunderstandings about the Wuhan virus and what the best quality research suggests is most likely true and the likely risk and benefits. Do you honestly believe I am claiming the COVID vaccines turn people into space aliens?!? Try to deal with reality.

 

[Paradoxical]

My sense is you've already arrived at a conclusion you are trying to justify.

Even if you believe Covid is more infectious and but equivalently virulent compared to the flu, you should still be promoting vaccinations, mask-wearing, social-distancing, etc.

Even for those who have immunity and even though masks have been shown to be as effective as a chain link fence against water?