Israel admits no healthy young adults have died of Covid-19

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

What I "spew" is what probably 99 out of 100 people qualified to actually study and provide data on this stuff "spews". You "spew" what the one outcast says, because it's what you want to be true. It's never true. It is actually proven that a lot of the anti-vax garbage out there IS propaganda.

If you truly believe what you just said here, it is a terrifyingly sad testament to the state of many peoples' psyche, and a scathing indictment of the woefully incomplete deductive reasoning processes present in the "99 out of 100" that you referenced.

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
So, how does it feel now that reality is catching up and you have to drlll down semantics to score hollow victories? Is it satisfying to know you never gave up, even when all the data and science turned hopelessly against you?

None of that is reality. Being a contrarian doesn't make you always correct.

BTW Elon Musk shared this nonsense on Twitter, and the Israeli Ministry of Health called him out for misrepresenting the information. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Agreeing with the TV doesn't make you correct or virtuous. The errors in interpretation of information that others make has no impact on statements I make directly to you. I have said many times for the benefit of petty libelists, which I shouldn't even have to, that posting a reply in a thread is not a blanket endorsement of the material posted as my belief. I can only surmise that this is an involuntary defensive deflection due to your inability to ever disprove anything I say unless you somehow tie it to erroneous positions held by others. Either way, it's your problem and not mine. If you wish to argue imaginary positions I never had or stated, have fun with that.

I am not Elon Musk, am not affiliated with Elon Musk, and my knowledge of public health emergency preparedness is derived from direct professional experience managing it. It is not found on Twitter.

My actual statement should be easy to refute with data, no matter what imaginary beliefs you've attributed to me in your mind. It would be a stretch for somebody that doesn't know the science to understand what I think on the topic, so I recommend you read what I wrote rather than depending on your imagination.

"Healthy children were never shown to be at risk and that data has been available since 2020 for most of the Western world."

Disagreeing about COVID with people and officials that don't know science and have never studied public health is not called being a contrarian. It's called educating the ignorant.

The US has around 75 million people under 18. Are you able to tell me how many unvaccinated healthy children in the US died? Do you know how to find that data? Look it up and explain to everyone why a novel gene expression therapy with a history of failure is a justified "protection" measure that should be recommended multiple times before the age of two.

No healthy people under 18 were ever at risk and you cannot show otherwise. All the stories about overflowing pediatric ICUs, all the stories about kids dying all over, were all blatant fabrications to generate hysteria and were mostly debunked at the time they were marketed. Why are you still defending blatant lies from three years ago when there is no evidence of them ever having been based in reality? Do you realize this was already known for a couple years and this is just the data showing up in documents?

I'll wait for your sources, which I'm sure will be every bit as thorough and detailed as the data you've requested for every vaccine adverse event.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
Those who died WITH but not always from Covid (diagnosed by those useless tests anyway) died most of the time in reality because of other health complications, pre-existing conditions, being artificially respirated for no real reason, old age and whatever, were even around 81 years in Germany. If i remember right.

Don't forget remdisiver (and the huge increase in "end of life" drugs that also help to suppress respiration) and the part these drugs played in what became known as the (financially incentivised) "standard of care".

You could also be forgiven for wondering if the mortality associated with the original waves followed the pattern of a spreading virus, or a pattern of medical negligence based on panic and hysteria.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
"Healthy children were never shown to be at risk and that data has been available since 2020 for most of the Western world."

Disagreeing about COVID with people and officials that don't know science and have never studied public health is not called being a contrarian. It's called educating the ignorant.

I never disagreed with that. It's true, other than a handful of rare cases. This thread is about people under 50, not children specifically. It is absolutely untrue that "not a single healthy person under 50" died from covid. But stars and flags, ya know.

I don't ask a plumber to fix my roof, and I don't listen to officials about viruses. I listened to the overwhelming majority of doctors, scientists, and people who I know personally who treated the patients. There is a LOT of healthcare presence just in my close family.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
What's the definition of "healthy"? Absolutely no health problems? Because that's pretty much nobody.

Younger generations appear to either have more health problems or we’ve overcoded non-health problems as problems.

But for people my generation essentially 1-4 percent of people who live past early childhood had codeable health problems at a significant rate prior to perhaps an average age of 42-45.

Most people in my generation remain physically and mentally qualified for military service and old are not qualified due to age.

Most people born prior to 1984, if they survived childhood - were healthy for most of their lives until what most people would consider “old.”

People born after 1984 - you’re going to have to make your own choices on this question.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

Prove me wrong.

A novel virus with an R0 of 2.75 and an IFR of 00.04% would take N months to infect 100% of the US populations with an initial infected cohort of 24 on January 31, 2020.

What does N = ?

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

Prove me wrong.

A novel virus with an R0 of 2.75 and an IFR of 00.04% would take N months to infect 100% of the US populations with an initial infected cohort of 24 on January 31, 2020.

What does N = ?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s 17 incubation periods[months]if all mitigation efforts are worthless and it’s 52 incubation periods[months] if all mitigation efforts have an average 50% efficacy.

What’s the range in days or months before 100% penetrance?

So on what date would 100% of the US population be infected?

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

Prove me wrong.

A novel virus with an R0 of 2.75 and an IFR of 00.04% would take N months to infect 100% of the US populations with an initial infected cohort of 24 on January 31, 2020.

What does N = ?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s 17 incubation periods[months]if all mitigation efforts are worthless and it’s 52 incubation periods[months] if all mitigation efforts have an average 50% efficacy.

What’s the range in days or months before 100% penetrance?

So on what date would 100% of the US population be infected?

To keep you ahead of the game, while I prove you wrong, the next question will be if the date range of 100% penetrance is inconsistent with observed reality in 2020-2021, then what are the five most simple variables, one of which must be incorrect? (R0, IFR, initial cohort, time = zero are four of the five).

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
"Healthy children were never shown to be at risk and that data has been available since 2020 for most of the Western world."

Disagreeing about COVID with people and officials that don't know science and have never studied public health is not called being a contrarian. It's called educating the ignorant.

But stars and flags, ya know.

I do know.

If only stars and flags were to be somehow tied to self-delusions and narcissism, might there never again be another complaint about who doesn't get enough of them?

I listened to the overwhelming majority of doctors, scientists, and people who I know personally who treated the patients. There is a LOT of healthcare presence just in my close family.

So, to rework this to be a bit more simple ontologically. Let's forget the meaningless names of the parts of this system because all the names are just placeholders. The system you described is most easily broken down as follows.

You listen to popular tropes on consensus if it ratifies doctrine from appointed expert authorities. Also critical are anecdotal personal testaments, from your family/associates and featured witnesses, to the evidence of said doctrine being true in their lives.

In other words, as I stated a few months ago, The Science of COVID is now a religious belief for all intents and purposes. Data and scientific principles are irrelevant to this belief unless doctrine and consensus concur. Facts that contradict doctrine are not facts, but conveniently become blasphemy. Scriptural study that goes against doctrine is not included in canon. Those that do not join "consensus" are excommunicated so as to preserve the illusion of real consensus and prevent schism from entering public view.

This is belief, not science.

a reply to: LordAhriman

What was the average age of a covid death in your country?

a reply to: LordAhriman

Your question: What is the definition of healthy?


The opposite of being sick.

Trying to play with words?

originally posted by: LordAhriman
What's the definition of "healthy"? Absolutely no health problems? Because that's pretty much nobody.

I don't know where you trying to get there but according to you nobody is 'absolutely healthy' so they are sick.

I think most people are sick n tired of the Covid narrative.

originally posted by: linda72

originally posted by: LordAhriman
What's the definition of "healthy"? Absolutely no health problems? Because that's pretty much nobody.

I don't know where you trying to get there but according to you nobody is 'absolutely healthy' so they are sick.

I think most people are sick n tired of the Covid narrative.

I’ve been sick twice in two decades for about 24-48 hours. I didn’t have a CBC or CMP value out of range until I was halfway through my forties. I had a BMI of ~12 until last year. I’ve never had an abnormal EKG, MRI, CT. My resting heart rate has been 60 +/- for almost half a century. My BP is 115-120/75-80, again for half a century.

I did break some bones over the years. And I made no attempt to eat healthy or never smoke nor drink.

I did work out a lot and ate well instead of garbage.

One wonders if that qualifies as healthy in Ahriman’s odd ontology?

No mRNA shot. No symptomatic SARS2. Never even got tested. Never wore a mask. Travelled in 23 states and 3 countries from 2020-2022.

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Jorge1986s

Prove me wrong.

A novel virus with an R0 of 2.75 and an IFR of 00.04% would take N months to infect 100% of the US populations with an initial infected cohort of 24 on January 31, 2020.

What does N = ?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s 17 incubation periods[months]if all mitigation efforts are worthless and it’s 52 incubation periods[months] if all mitigation efforts have an average 50% efficacy.

What’s the range in days or months before 100% penetrance?

So on what date would 100% of the US population be infected?

To keep you ahead of the game, while I prove you wrong, the next question will be if the date range of 100% penetrance is inconsistent with observed reality in 2020-2021, then what are the five most simple variables, one of which must be incorrect? (R0, IFR, initial cohort, time = zero are four of the five).

Why are all of these data points and questions important?

Well, SARS2 was reported at a 2.4 to 2.8 R0 and an IFR somewhere around 00.04 by March 2020 with around 2 dozen initial cases in US in first half of January 2020. With an estimated average incubation of 4-7 days.

If all of that is true and mitigation efforts were worthless, 100% of the US population would be infected within 68 to 119 days from Jan 2020 (so early April to late May 2020 100% penetrance).

If mitigation efforts were 50% effective (they weren’t), 100% of the US population is infected by 208 days (mid July 2020) to 364 days (mid January 2021).

Check the official penetrance in 2020 and come back and explain why these numbers are a problem.

Additionally, explain why no mitigation efforts could ever prevent the above describe virus from hitting 100% penetrance and why “flattening the curve” is a laughably unscientific concept.

One can theoretically shift the penetrance curve by a short period of time that will provide no benefit. Why no benefit? Because exponential growth is exponential — shifting the penetrance curve causes a worse impact on hospital systems 1-5 incubation periods later not a better impact.

Ahriman, if you don’t understand what I am saying, which is the most rudimentary set of public health & epidemic concepts taught to a college kid in the 90s, then you don’t know what you don’t know.

And if you don’t know what you don’t know, the utility of your opinion on the subject and the utility of your reading the writings of anyone on the subject are both zero.

Not low. Not a “layman’s” view.

Utility = zero.

Alternatively, read what I am explaining to you. Understand it. And reevaluate everything you think you know.