Italian Institute Of Health Covid Death Adjustment.

originally posted by: dremel18
a reply to: chr0naut

An italian doctor Giuseppe De Donno discovered a plasma therapy that worked and he succeded in healing covid 19 patient, he died from suicide after one week making a post on his facebook saying: "If I die I want people to know that is wouldn't be suicide". THEY need you to take the vaccine, this is a global holocaust, THEY need to be sure that the planet for THEIR next generations will be a good planet to live plenty of resources and not overpopulated, what is so hard for you to understand? Beside this you say "all this people dying from Covid", again, it is not hard to understand that those are all fake numbers. And all those people dying from the vaccine ? All the possible viruses and things other than covid now those don't exist anymore, ypu can die only from covid now. With this covid they didn't want to clean the population, they want to do it with the vaccine, and if a person doesn't die from the first dose, wait for the second, and then wait for the third and so on, at some point and some x dose the person will die. I don't want to impose my thoughts to anyone, but at the same time I'm losing faith in the humanity, how can someone think that this isn't planned? THEY started planning this from 20 years minimum maybe more

Thank you for that. I had not heard of De Donno, however, this is more conspiracy theory than fact.

Covid 19: the results of the TSUNAMI study on convalescent plasma have been published - Italian National Blood Center (in Italian)

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma
in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia - The New England Journal of Medicine

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial - The Lancet

So the 'miracle cure' isn't as miraculous as touted.

Also, his research, and the role he played, was called into question in a hearing before the Italian Senate, where a determination was made that plasma therapy was useless, and the suggestion was that he had falsified results.

Afterwards, he resigned (voluntarily) from his position as head physician at the university-hospital. Less than a month later he committed suicide in his home by hanging.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Develop a vaccine and let people make a choice. Freedom used to be a good thing.

I'm fairly sure that if you are convicted of committing a crime, your freedom is taken away. This happens in every human culture. It is universal to human societies.

"Freedom" has to be balanced against law and wider issues of public safety.

I think that urging someone to take a course of action that is highly probable to be harmful to them, and thousands of those around them, is something that should be considered to be criminal. It is definitely sociopathic.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

That's what they would say anyway. You can only believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

I don't apply some arbitrary ratio to what I believe. I take a skeptical view and research things, weighing the individual information and considering the possible motivations behind its presentation.

You should try it. Assume everything is untrue until you have checked up on it.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Z-packs failed in India and Brazil, where they were initially supplied by the Governments, but were later withdrawn. Additionally, this also led to liver damage in some who overdosed in the hope that it would help.

Of course self-medication didn't work well. At what point did I suggest that one could self-administer a prescription drug safely? You suggested there were no alternate solution; I gave you some.

As for the liver failure from overdose, are you suggesting that any solution must be safe even when overdosed? Perhaps, if that is a concern, we should ban someone with the Chinese virus from drinking water.

Monoclonal antibodies are proving highly effective in treatment of early-stage cases and are approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19.

I am well aware. I have two family members, both well into their 80s with co-morbidities, who contracted severe cases, were hospitalized, and who both had a rapid recovery that coincided with the use of monoclonal antibodies.

There are also antivirals, like Remdesivir, that are used for treatment and have been approved for COVID-19 treatment.

So you concede that there are other solutions then?

However, most of those protesting are not suggesting solutions, they are simply damning proven and effective mitigations against COVID-19. They are worsening the problem.

How does the intent of someone with concerns over one treatment negate the existence of alternate treatments? You said there were no alternate solutions; now you seem to be saying there are no alternate solutions that agree the vaccines are the only solutions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Two of your links do not work (my browser does not understand urls that begin with "extension//") and the other is in a foreign language which I cannot read. So let ,e ask a few simple questions relating to the use of convalescent plasma versus the mRNA vaccines:

• Do you believe the mRNA vaccines work without producing antibodies?
  
• Do you believe that those who recover from the Chinese virus do so without their bodies using antibody production?
  
• If you answered "no" to the first two questions, why do you believe that antibodies which have already proved effective in one patient, by definition, are inferior to antibodies produced in accordance with a scientist's design and which have failed to provide claimed immunity to the disease?

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Hahahahahahahaha, so not being vaccinated should be criminal ... this has got to be a dream.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It sounds like you are possibly a misinformed pawn in a cruel game with those nose jabs.

Sorry I don't have a link, but I've seen pictures of quite a few of the package inserts for those stilettos for the nose declaring NOT TO BE USED FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES.

More, I've heard several video interviews with Kary Mullis, obviously before he died, declaring the same.

The PCR is great at what it's designed to do--find fragments of DNA strands of virus and assorted other critters, including of critters that we walk around with inside our bodies, critters than are essentially benign.

The PCR tests cannot detect infection, they detect only fragments of DNA

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

The Z-packs failed in India and Brazil, where they were initially supplied by the Governments, but were later withdrawn. Additionally, this also led to liver damage in some who overdosed in the hope that it would help.

Of course self-medication didn't work well. At what point did I suggest that one could self-administer a prescription drug safely? You suggested there were no alternate solution; I gave you some.

I never said that there were no alternate solutions. I said that these people protesting so loudly are not offering any alternate solutions as part of their protest - they are not contributing positively to the resolution of the situation they are protesting against.

As for the liver failure from overdose, are you suggesting that any solution must be safe even when overdosed? Perhaps, if that is a concern, we should ban someone with the Chinese virus from drinking water.

That escalated into absurdity fairly quickly...

Are there currently cases of people drinking too much water to try and protect themselves from COVID-19, or is that something entirely in your imagination? Do you really think that is valid point of argument?

Monoclonal antibodies are proving highly effective in treatment of early-stage cases and are approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19.

I am well aware. I have two family members, both well into their 80s with co-morbidities, who contracted severe cases, were hospitalized, and who both had a rapid recovery that coincided with the use of monoclonal antibodies.

There are also antivirals, like Remdesivir, that are used for treatment and have been approved for COVID-19 treatment.

So you concede that there are other solutions then?

Yes.

There are treatments and mitigations against the disease, but I would not go as far as to suggest that they are solutions to the overall disease problem. And sometimes, the best of medicines just don't work as hoped.

In the case of an infectious disease, if you don't address the spread of a disease, you only make everyone dependent upon any drugs that protect from the symptoms. At least the vaccines will ultimately attenuate the spread.

However, most of those protesting are not suggesting solutions, they are simply damning proven and effective mitigations against COVID-19. They are worsening the problem.

How does the intent of someone with concerns over one treatment negate the existence of alternate treatments? You said there were no alternate solutions; now you seem to be saying there are no alternate solutions that agree the vaccines are the only solutions.

TheRedneck

These same people who are anti-vax, are also anti-mask, and anti-lockdown, and who ridicule every effort of the CDC, FDA, AMA, and WHO.

It goes beyond just opposing vaccination to where they organize and attend super-spreader events and they flat-out deny that they are actively encouraging the spread of a deadly disease.

And, one other thing I would like to point out. It is in regard to HQC and Ivermectin. Proponents of those treatments keep harping on about their cheapness, yet three $40 shots of vaccine over years of time, are cheaper than monthly packs of Ivermectin or HQC, that you would have to take pretty much as long as the disease exists.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Two of your links do not work (my browser does not understand urls that begin with "extension//") and the other is in a foreign language which I cannot read. So let ,e ask a few simple questions relating to the use of convalescent plasma versus the mRNA vaccines:

• Do you believe the mRNA vaccines work without producing antibodies?
  
• Do you believe that those who recover from the Chinese virus do so without their bodies using antibody production?
  
• If you answered "no" to the first two questions, why do you believe that antibodies which have already proved effective in one patient, by definition, are inferior to antibodies produced in accordance with a scientist's design and which have failed to provide claimed immunity to the disease?

TheRedneck

Apologies about the links. I will look into them and will try to post some better links when I have the time.

I answered no to the first two questions.

Also I don't believe that "antibodies produced in accordance with a scientist's design" have "failed to provide claimed immunity to the disease". That is just a bogus mis-reading of the now vast amounts of practical data.

They work with exactly the same effectiveness as 'naturally acquired' antibodies. Sometimes, they don't work. Most times, however, they do, and in very similar ratios of effectiveness.

As I said before, the underlying immune system, the thing that does the actual work of protecting from the disease, is the same in both cases. They are just different (but similar) methods of triggering it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Hahahahahahahaha, so not being vaccinated should be criminal ... this has got to be a dream.

No, vaccination should be a choice.

The criminal act is misrepresentation of the truth to try and dissuade someone from making a decision informed by the truth.

In the past, bearing false witness, was against the law, and also a sin (in Christian terms, it was against the ninth of the Ten Commandments).

These days, bearing false witness, especially on social media, is regarded as being "free speech" by those who do it, but a lie is still just a lie, as far as I am concerned.

a reply to: chr0naut

Like the pharmaceutical companies telling kids they will become superheroes if they take the vaccine?

a reply to: chr0naut

I never said that there were no alternate solutions. I said that these people protesting so loudly are not offering any alternate solutions as part of their protest - they are not contributing positively to the resolution of the situation they are protesting against.

Those alternatives already exist, and are known. They are also being actively opposed by those who are promoting mandatory vaccinations. The monoclonal antibodies for instance... Biden himself has severely reduced the availability of them to states which he has deemed "unworthy" because they do not agree with his vaccine mandates. These are the same monoclonal antibodies which cured two elderly members of my own extended family. Hydrocholoroquine was demonized after decades of use and acceptance as a generally safe medication for other issues; suddenly, it was this deadly poison that would kill people who used it to treat the Chinese virus. Remdesivir has suffered a lesser but similar fate.

Why do you believe that protests against one specific treatment, which has shown very questionable efficacy in real-world application, must be accompanied by new alternative treatments when such alternate treatments already exist?

That escalated into absurdity fairly quickly...

It was born in absurdity.

Your links were filled with examples of how people overdosed on prescription medications because there was no medical advice forthcoming for them.

Are there currently cases of people drinking too much water to try and protect themselves from COVID-19, or is that something entirely in your imagination? Do you really think that is valid point of argument?

When a medication that is generally harmless and potentially effective when administered by a physician is demonized over its abuse without medical expertise, yes, the example of water overdose seems quite valid to demonstrate that absurdity.

There are treatments and mitigations against the disease, but I would not go as far as to suggest that they are solutions to the overall disease problem. And sometimes, the best of medicines just don't work as hoped.

That would be dependent on what you believe the purpose of treatments and mitigations are. Since we have already dabbled in absurdity, we could simply irradiate the entire planet, killing everyone on it, and that would absolutely guarantee there would be no more cases of this Chinese virus... ever! I don't think that would be a good idea, however.

We live in a reality where viruses exist. We have seasonable flu, colds, and a plethora of actually deadly viruses. The difference is the fatality rate; people have died from the common cold, but precious few. Quite a few people have died from influenza, although that number is reduced now primarily thanks to treatments. The flu is still a thing, despite the recent push to get everyone a seasonal flu shot before they can contract it.

On the other hand, ebola is fatal in over 50% of cases. The bubonic plague is highly fatal. Smallpox: highly fatal. Such diseases have the potential to wipe out entire areas if not contained, and thus lend themselves to the need for a consistent vaccination program. The Chinese virus has a death rate under 1%, yet the present mandates are far in excess of any previous vaccines, even for such things as smallpox.

In the case of an infectious disease, if you don't address the spread of a disease, you only make everyone dependent upon any drugs that protect from the symptoms. At least the vaccines will ultimately attenuate the spread.

They do not seem to be working. Despite so many being vaccinated, the spread continues, seemingly unaffected. And to address the apparent inability of the vaccines to control this spread, more vaccines are proposed. That's like realizing that one's car is moving too fast, and pushing the accelerator hoping it will slow the car down.

These same people who are anti-vax, are also anti-mask, and anti-lockdown, and who ridicule every effort of the CDC, FDA, AMA, and WHO.

I suppose you can include me in that group. I am firmly against myself taking this vaccine, and adamantly against any attempt to mandate it. Yet, I have never ridiculed anyone who has voluntarily taken it.

I am against mandatory mask use. Some of us simply cannot comply without endangering our health in other ways. And... despite some areas having near 100% mask use, the spread continues unabated.

I am against mandated lockdowns. They do not seem to have worked either against the spread, but they have destroyed the lives of many people and have led to some humanitarian atrocities. The recent shooting on the movie set of "Rust" is one example of these unintended consequences: it has been stated that the armorer was lax in her duties because she was following social distancing restrictions. Another example is Alabama's lockdown mandate: the first tornado wave that came through, the Governor had to amend her mandate to allow people to legally evacuate when a tornado approached! It took several hours for that to happen. Do you have any idea what a tornado can do in several hours?

So yes, I am against all those things, and I happily criticize and ridicule all the organizations which support these failed and dangerous policies. I am not trying to help spread a disease; I am trying to preserve the lives and freedoms of those who these policies will harm, which is much more than 1% of the population.

It goes beyond just opposing vaccination to where they organize and attend super-spreader events and they flat-out deny that they are actively encouraging the spread of a deadly disease.

When one "side" starts making demands that are dangerous and ineffective, why is it so heinous to see the other "side" oppose them just as vociferously?

Answer: because they're not doing what you want them to! Waaaaahhhhh!

And, one other thing I would like to point out. It is in regard to HQC and Ivermectin. Proponents of those treatments keep harping on about their cheapness, yet three $40 shots of vaccine over years of time, are cheaper than monthly packs of Ivermectin or HQC, that you would have to take pretty much as long as the disease exists.

That, sir, is a ridiculous statement based in utter ignorance.

Anyone who recovers from a disease does so because of antibodies against that disease... monoclonal antibodies work, but natural antibodies are more effective. No medicine cures a disease on its own; they simply assist the body's natural defenses. Even this vaccine, in theory, works because it stimulates the production of antibodies.

It is those antibodies that create immunity to a disease. Not a medication; antibodies. So anyone who contracts the Chinese virus will produce antibodies regardless of whether or not they take hydrochloroquine or Remdesivir... actually, regardless of whether they even help! And that negates the need for a vaccine, since the antibodies produced by the vaccine already exist.

Plus, the vaccines seem to be an ongoing thing. One shot is not enough to become vaccinated; one must have two shots now. Wait, wait, wait... make that three shots according to new data. Do I hear four? Five? 20? 100? A shot each month for life?

That continual adjustment upward in the number of shots required is not giving me confidence in the vaccine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Also I don't believe that "antibodies produced in accordance with a scientist's design" have "failed to provide claimed immunity to the disease". That is just a bogus mis-reading of the now vast amounts of practical data.

I fail to see how one can not believe that the original claims have not been proven. Joe Biden stated quite clearly that "anyone who gets this vaccine will not get COVID-19." It's on video. He said it.

But many people who have been vaccinated have also had severe cases of the Chinese virus. Those two elderly family members I mentioned earlier? They were both fully vaccinated, wore masks religiously, and complied with all social distancing guidelines. Both contracted the virus and both were hospitalized. Both began recovery immediately upon receiving monoclonal antibodies.

So, either the vaccine failed to provide antibodies, or these is a difference between the monoclonal antibodies and the vaccine-induced antibodies. We know the monoclonal antibodies work well; we have many reports of the vaccine-induced antibodies not working effectively. Personally, I believe the vaccine-produced antibodies are simply not very effective and are different from the monoclonal antibodies. That's the only thing which makes logical sense.

They work with exactly the same effectiveness as 'naturally acquired' antibodies. Sometimes, they don't work. Most times, however, they do, and in very similar ratios of effectiveness.

Absolutely untrue, as demonstrated above. You seem to be reading what you want to read into the propaganda you are reading.

As I said before, the underlying immune system, the thing that does the actual work of protecting from the disease, is the same in both cases. They are just different (but similar) methods of triggering it.

Again, so why did monoclonal antibodies provide protection when vaccine-produced antibodies did not?

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

No, vaccination should be a choice.

So you agree with me that the mandates should be halted?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It has to do with two things, the level of antibodies in the plasma, and what the antibodies will react to. Vaccine induced antibodies do provide protection, but since they only have antibodies against the spike protein, while infection produced antibodies have several different antibodies targeting different regions, it's more likely the amount of antibodies that are useful will be higher in someone who was infected vs vaccinated.

Some research suggests a previously infected person who then gets a vaccine would produce the best plasma.
www.thelancet.com...(21)00060-4/fulltext

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That could well be possible. The more antibodies targeting different proteins on the virus the better, obviously.

My main concern with the vaccine is that there have been reports of micro clotting occurring. This clotting issue is also present in advanced cases of the disease, usually in much higher amounts. That tells me there is a probability that the spike protein is the reason behind the clotting.

Remember that we thus far have little information on the mechanisms in advanced cases.

If that is the case, I would expect the best result would be if the virus never entered the bloodstream, possible only if there is no viral infection (unlikely given the high contagion factor) or if the infection is minor enough that the lung/blood barrier is never breached. Moderate risk would be with the vaccine. Higher risk would be a severe case of the virus only, and the highest risk would be a severe case of the virus immediately after taking the vaccine. I base this on the fact that the mRNA vaccines do not replicate (the amount of spike protein is limited) while a virus will replicate and provide a higher dose of spike protein in the bloodstream.

The vaccine is probably safe for most people; I have no issue stating that. However, there is some danger to a small number of people from the vaccine, as is common but also somewhat higher than with any other vaccine. That's why I refuse to take it. All of my health problems stem from circulatory issues, and I don't feel like taking that chance when I know my natural immunity is quite strong.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

My main concern with the vaccine is that there have been reports of micro clotting occurring. This clotting issue is also present in advanced cases of the disease, usually in much higher amounts. That tells me there is a probability that the spike protein is the reason behind the clotting.

I've been saying that for a long time and I agree with you. It's about measuring your risk and choosing the best option for yourself.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Those alternatives already exist, and are known. They are also being actively opposed by those who are promoting mandatory vaccinations. The monoclonal antibodies for instance... Biden himself has severely reduced the availability of them to states which he has deemed "unworthy" because they do not agree with his vaccine mandates. These are the same monoclonal antibodies which cured two elderly members of my own extended family.

Nothing of the sort. Biden doubled overall deliveries of monoclonal antibodies, but there is an issue of limited supply, and so the administration has tried to manage that.

Hydrocholoroquine was demonized after decades of use and acceptance as a generally safe medication for other issues; suddenly, it was this deadly poison that would kill people who used it to treat the Chinese virus.

That was the way it was presented, but it wasn't without adverse reactions, and wasn't fit for purpose.

Remdesivir has suffered a lesser but similar fate.

Remdesivir is dangerous, but it is an effective antiviral for acute care of COVID-19.

Why do you believe that protests against one specific treatment, which has shown very questionable efficacy in real-world application, must be accompanied by new alternative treatments when such alternate treatments already exist?

Vaccines have hundreds of years of proof of effectiveness with few adverse reactions. There are few cases that are 'breakthrough' in billions of cases of vaccines administered.

Your links were filled with examples of how people overdosed on prescription medications because there was no medical advice forthcoming for them.

When a medication that is generally harmless and potentially effective when administered by a physician is demonized over its abuse without medical expertise, yes, the example of water overdose seems quite valid to demonstrate that absurdity.

"When administered by a physician" is the pertinent part of that. Trump took HQC against the advice of his doctors, only took it for two weeks, and discontinued it after his doctors advised him of its dangers with his heart condition.

That would be dependent on what you believe the purpose of treatments and mitigations are. Since we have already dabbled in absurdity

No, YOU were the one "dabbling in absurdity", and YOU are doing it again! The argument doesn't become any more valid, no mater how much more 'stupid' you throw at it.

, we could simply irradiate the entire planet, killing everyone on it, and that would absolutely guarantee there would be no more cases of this Chinese virus... ever! I don't think that would be a good idea, however.

Really? You figured that out all by yourself?

We live in a reality where viruses exist. We have seasonable flu, colds, and a plethora of actually deadly viruses. The difference is the fatality rate; people have died from the common cold, but precious few. Quite a few people have died from influenza, although that number is reduced now primarily thanks to treatments. The flu is still a thing, despite the recent push to get everyone a seasonal flu shot before they can contract it.

On the other hand, ebola is fatal in over 50% of cases. The bubonic plague is highly fatal. Smallpox: highly fatal. Such diseases have the potential to wipe out entire areas if not contained, and thus lend themselves to the need for a consistent vaccination program.

What? Vaccines? Are you mad!!!

LOL

The Chinese virus has a death rate under 1%, yet the present mandates are far in excess of any previous vaccines, even for such things as smallpox.

COVID-19 in the USA has a case-mortality ratio of 1.62%. For the whole world, the CFR is 2.02%, but these are falling due to vaccination efforts.

They do not seem to be working. Despite so many being vaccinated, the spread continues, seemingly unaffected. And to address the apparent inability of the vaccines to control this spread, more vaccines are proposed. That's like realizing that one's car is moving too fast, and pushing the accelerator hoping it will slow the car down.

But vaccination is working. It just isn't working instantly, because it is real medicine, not some snake-oil cure.

I suppose you can include me in that group. I am firmly against myself taking this vaccine, and adamantly against any attempt to mandate it. Yet, I have never ridiculed anyone who has voluntarily taken it.

I am against mandatory mask use. Some of us simply cannot comply without endangering our health in other ways. And... despite some areas having near 100% mask use, the spread continues unabated.

I am against mandated lockdowns. They do not seem to have worked either against the spread, but they have destroyed the lives of many people and have led to some humanitarian atrocities.

Ah, like all the businesses that are supposed to be failing, and yet 2020 had the lowest number of bankruptcies for decades? United States Bankruptcies - Trading Economics

So, perhaps the stuff that forms your opinions is really a matter of the way someone has 'spun' things to you?

Masks, and lockdowns, and vaccines, and social distancing, and sanitizing all work. They have literally centuries of proof of effectiveness prior to COVID-19. In New Zealand, we have twice previously halted the spread of COVID-19 without vaccines and any special magical medication.

Yet, all it needs is one person who, like Typhoid Mary, doesn't comply with reasonable safety precautions, and becomes the epicenter for an outbreak that kills people. These stupid, dangerous, anti-societal, super-spreaders ruin the efforts of the rest of society. They march in close ranks unmasked unvaxed, unprotected, and no doubt, some of them infectious. And you tell me that the precautions don't work? Get real!

Even here in New Zealand, thus social-media-distributed memetic mental illness is spreading. Just this last week there were large anti-mask, anti-vax, anti-lockdown protests here. And the incredible thing was that numbers of the protesters were carrying 'Trump' placards. Here, in New Zealand?? WTF???

... to be continued.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Two of your links do not work (my browser does not understand urls that begin with "extension//") and the other is in a foreign language which I cannot read. So let ,e ask a few simple questions relating to the use of convalescent plasma versus the mRNA vaccines:

• Do you believe the mRNA vaccines work without producing antibodies?
  
• Do you believe that those who recover from the Chinese virus do so without their bodies using antibody production?
  
• If you answered "no" to the first two questions, why do you believe that antibodies which have already proved effective in one patient, by definition, are inferior to antibodies produced in accordance with a scientist's design and which have failed to provide claimed immunity to the disease?

TheRedneck

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

As for the link in Italian, I have found an English language .pdf of the study on the AIFA site.

a reply to: chr0naut

Biden doubled overall deliveries of monoclonal antibodies, but there is an issue of limited supply, and so the administration has tried to manage that.

Then Biden needs some remedial math at least. There is now a serious shortage of monoclonal antibodies here.

You do not know what you are talking about.

That was the way it was presented, but it wasn't without adverse reactions, and wasn't fit for purpose.

Are we going back to you outright lying? Hydrochloroquine has been around for decades and used as treatment for other issues. Any contraindications as to it's potential side effects are well known.

Remdesivir is dangerous, but it is an effective antiviral for acute care of COVID-19.

Any medication is dangerous if taken improperly. Do I need to start talking about water poisoning again?

Vaccines have hundreds of years of proof of effectiveness with few adverse reactions. There are few cases that are 'breakthrough' in billions of cases of vaccines administered.

Vaccines also have "hundreds of years" of recipients not catching the disease, until these came along. Pick a definition, willya?

I'm going to ignore the inane to save time.

COVID-19 in the USA has a case-mortality ratio of 1.62%. For the whole world, the CFR is 2.02%, but these are falling due to vaccination efforts.

I suppose if one includes deaths caused by sending nursing home residents back infected while denying medical professionals PPE and people just so happening to die in car crashes of the virus instead of hospitals, one might could get the numbers that high.

It's still not as deadly as smallpox.

But vaccination is working. It just isn't working instantly, because it is real medicine, not some snake-oil cure.

Yeah, we all know: it is "real" medicine that doesn't stop one from catching the virus, doesn't prevent hospitalizations, and doesn't prevent deaths. I guess it's a new kind of "real" medicine.... a real scientific breakthrough.

So, perhaps the stuff that forms your opinions is really a matter of the way someone has 'spun' things to you?

Yep, you caught me... it's all spin. When I see businesses with signs stating "permanently closed" it must be just spin. They closed down to to affect my opinion! I guess they are actually just closing their doors and putting out the "for lease" signs when they see me coming.

Masks, and lockdowns, and vaccines, and social distancing, and sanitizing all work. They have literally centuries of proof of effectiveness prior to COVID-19.

Centuries? Wow... it has been centuries since 1898? That was when face masks were first designed (they didn't achieve widespread use until the late 1920s). Centuries since 1966? That was the first suggestion of hand sanitizer. Of course, we're also still in the two weeks needed to "flatten the curve" starting in early 2020, so maybe you're right.

In New Zealand, we have twice previously halted the spread of COVID-19 without vaccines and any special magical medication.

Oh, really? You sure have a weird view of what "stopping" a virus is.

Yet, all it needs is one person who, like Typhoid Mary, doesn't comply with reasonable safety precautions, and becomes the epicenter for an outbreak that kills people. These stupid, dangerous, anti-societal, super-spreaders ruin the efforts of the rest of society. They march in close ranks unmasked unvaxed, unprotected, and no doubt, some of them infectious. And you tell me that the precautions don't work? Get real!

Oh, so they work, but we just haven't been able to get them to work because of Typhoid Marys. Got it.

So... why is it that areas with less masking requirements have no significant difference in severity than areas with high masking requirements? More Typhoid Marys cancel each other out maybe?

Even here in New Zealand, thus social-media-distributed memetic mental illness is spreading. Just this last week there were large anti-mask, anti-vax, anti-lockdown protests here. And the incredible thing was that numbers of the protesters were carrying 'Trump' placards. Here, in New Zealand?? WTF???

Maybe the precautions worked against the stupid virus instead of the Chinese virus. You should be relieved... the stupid virus spreads more rapidly and has more consequences than the Chinese virus ever dreamed of.

TheRedneck