This Corona virus pandemic could be the weapon that takes our liberties away , all in the name of saving lives?

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

This prediction is off by a long shot. 3 weeks ago, we were at ~5k dead in the US; 2 weeks ago, 10k. A week ago, 20k. We're set to crest 40K this weekend. August is about 4 months away.

Stanford just published a study...not yet peer reviewed, but given the time constraints I'm glad, besides which peer review in my books has been largely shown to be a sham with so many documented cases of outright fraud.

Here's a cut and paste:

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The implications of this could be huge.....it would mean that a massive number of people have come into contact with the virus and that it didn't affect them....and it might provide an indication that so called 'herd immunity' might be much closer than we previously thought. Here's the link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-pEVLTseLoe-P3PwnO2HO8uDEHbFITUk8OEe_ayRQiAPw

 

[EleventhHour]

Stanford just published a study...not yet peer reviewed, but given the time constraints I'm glad, besides which peer review in my books has been largely shown to be a sham with so many documented cases of outright fraud.

This is absolutely not true!

Maybe for some fake, low end non-intellectual journals.

Professors, masters and doctoral students from reputable universities have rigorous internal process before the article is even submitted to be peer reviewed.
And reputable journals often ask for revisions.

 

[EleventhHour]

Stanford just published a study...not yet peer reviewed, but given the time constraints I'm glad, besides which peer review in my books has been largely shown to be a sham with so many documented cases of outright fraud.

Here's a cut and paste:

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The implications of this could be huge.....it would mean that a massive number of people have come into contact with the virus and that it didn't affect them....and it might provide an indication that so called 'herd immunity' might be much closer than we previously thought. Here's the link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-pEVLTseLoe-P3PwnO2HO8uDEHbFITUk8OEe_ayRQiAPw

Here is what the professor of epidemiology at Berkeley had to say about this non peer reviewed material.

“The idea this would be a passport to going safely back to work and getting us up and running has two constraints: we do not know if antibodies protect you and for how long, and a very small percentage of the population even has antibodies,” he said.

Even with the adjusted rate of infection as found by the study, only 3% of the population has coronavirus – that means 97% does not. To reach herd immunity a significant portion of the population would have to be infected and recovered from coronavirus.

 

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

This is absolutely not true!

Maybe for some fake, low end non-intellectual journals.

Professors, masters and doctoral students from reputable universities have rigorous internal process before the article is even submitted to be peer reviewed.
And reputable journals often ask for revisions.

I didn't know Stanford was held in such low regard...I haven't yet read the actual report itself, just the Gaurdian article on it.

You quoted someone from Berkley with respect to antibodies and the protection (or lack of same) they provide. Could you link that, I'd like to read it....is it part of a peer reviewed publication? I know you seem to think peer review has weight, while I'm far more suspcious of it.

I'm curious as to why you're so antagonistic toward any news that has even a hint of optimism...the Gaurdian article on the Stanford study was not at all suggesting that we're ready for a return to normal, but rather saying that this type of research is essential for making evidence based decisions on when and how that might happen.

"
“This has implications for learning how far we are in the course of the epidemic,” said Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study. “It has implications for epidemic models that are being used to design policies and estimate what it means for our healthcare system.”

The study marks the first large-scale study of its kind in the US, researchers said. The study was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.



Thanks.

 

[EleventhHour]

I didn't know Stanford was held in such low regard...I haven't yet read the actual report itself, just the Gaurdian article on it.

You quoted someone from Berkley with respect to antibodies and the protection (or lack of same) they provide. Could you link that, I'd like to read it....is it part of a peer reviewed publication? I know you seem to think peer review has weight, while I'm far more suspcious of it.

I'm curious as to why you're so antagonistic toward any news that has even a hint of optimism...the Gaurdian article on the Stanford study was not at all suggesting that we're ready for a return to normal, but rather saying that this type of research is essential for making evidence based decisions on when and how that might happen.

"
“This has implications for learning how far we are in the course of the epidemic,” said Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study. “It has implications for epidemic models that are being used to design policies and estimate what it means for our healthcare system.”

The study marks the first large-scale study of its kind in the US, researchers said. The study was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.



Thanks.

He is in the same article.

Listen I have several members of my family published in engineering, science and medical journals.. I know the process.

My point was about peer review which you stated is fraud... it is certainly is not, revisions and clarifications are requested all the time by the peer reviewers in most reputable science journals.
Journals are ranked you know.

Aside from this......being published is not the whole story, it is the number of citations that the article receives over time that determines its reliability and validity in the area of research.

 

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

He is in the same article.

Listen I have several members of my family published in engineering, science and medical journals.. I know the process.

My point was about peer review which you stated is fraud... it is certainly is not, revisions and clarifications are requested all the time by the peer reviewers in most reputable science journals.
Journals are ranked you know.

Aside from this......being published is not the whole story, it is the number of citations that the article receives over time that determines its reliability and validity in the area of research.

I didn't say that peer reveiw "was" fraud....but I am skeptical of it because of all the documented cases of fraud....that doesn't mean that 100% of the time that the peer review process is completely invalid, but often enough that it doesn't instill a high level of confidence with myself personally.

Here's a linked study that I think you'd agree is at least a reputable source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327091/

I'm not worried about peer review myself....I don't believe the Imperial College report that predicted 1+ million deaths in the United States, even with lockdown measures, was peer reviewed.

 

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

Lots of low resolution thinking going on....and to a degree its understandable, but most people know....science is not about a vote, its about imperical evidence, until then all we have are theories....and without verifiable proof one opinion is much the same as any other.

What gets under my skin a bit is when some know it all prattles on with something like "my brother is an epidemiolgist whose been published in xyz and he says.....". The inference of course is that because of a family or other close relationship, that this confers on someone a degree of scientific knowledge, which they themselves don't possess....and we're all to be grateful that this saint has come down from the mountain to share their wisdom.

You see this in all facets of life.....even in sports. Someone has a family member who plays for a professional hockey team, and so that person thinks they have the inside scoop on everything to do with that team. "My brother plays for the Ice Caps and he says the coach is completely out to lunch and doesn't even know how to run a simple drill".

In either case, what you're getting is one person's opinion....second hand, its not factual, its just one point of view. And that's not to say the point of view doesn't have merit, it absolutely does....but so do opposing views.

Getting back to the novel coronavirus, the architect of Sweden's response is an epidemioligist....the head epidemiolgist for that country. Does that mean that his plans is the absolute right one? Absolutely not, we won't have a clear picture on that for several months...or maybe a year, after there is far more data. Likewise with herd immunity, which at this point is simply a theory as it applies to this virus...it may work, it may not....we don't know yet.

Whether herd immunity works or not will take a lot of further study and loads of testing.....and will require a substantial number of people to have been infected with the virus. My take on Sweden is that their response to the pandemic will likely provide a good indication as to whether there is merit in herd immunity or not....with much less restrictive mitigation efforts the number of people getting infected should happen much faster, and given the death totals coming out of that country that does seem to be the case.

Personally I don't think we can ever completely stop the virus from spreading entirely....and that herd immunity is our only real hope until a vaccine becomes available. And that hope may prove to be in vain, only time will tell.

Hope everyone is coping well....thankfully our God is an awesome God and we know that this life is not the end.

 

[JohnR7]

it is not the number one preventable cause

Diet is actually the number two preventable cause of death. Cardio is the leading cause of death.

 

[JohnR7]

You obviously do not understand the immune system and how viruses work.

Not everyone with COVID-19 get SARS or Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Just like you can have SARS that is caused by something other than COVID-19.

 

[JohnR7]

Personally I don't think we can ever completely stop the virus from spreading entirely.

In 2018 140,000 people died from measles. Most under the age of 5. Even though we have a vaccine. Of course measles is a lot more contagious than COVID-19. Because it is a lot more airborn. From tests that my son and I have done: If people wear a mask and keep a distance of 3 feet from others, we can control COVID-19 from spreading. Along with washing hands or hand sanitizer. He actually interns for Purell so I am pretty sure he knows what he is doing even if we did not document our results. He is working on a way he can go back to playing volleyball without people making each other sick. Maybe if they wear a mask and put purell on their hands and on the ball. Some of the people on his volleyball team actually work for Purell with him. The mask of course does not protect people, it keeps them from spreading their germs to others. A double surgical mask gives twice the protection.

 

[bojack]

I didn't know Stanford was held in such low regard...I haven't yet read the actual report itself, just the Gaurdian article on it.

You quoted someone from Berkley with respect to antibodies and the protection (or lack of same) they provide. Could you link that, I'd like to read it....is it part of a peer reviewed publication? I know you seem to think peer review has weight, while I'm far more suspcious of it.

I'm curious as to why you're so antagonistic toward any news that has even a hint of optimism...the Gaurdian article on the Stanford study was not at all suggesting that we're ready for a return to normal, but rather saying that this type of research is essential for making evidence based decisions on when and how that might happen.

"
“This has implications for learning how far we are in the course of the epidemic,” said Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study. “It has implications for epidemic models that are being used to design policies and estimate what it means for our healthcare system.”

The study marks the first large-scale study of its kind in the US, researchers said. The study was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus.



Thanks.

I agree and there's other things to look at .. Like agenda .. What is pagan agenda ? Witches are nature freaks and tree huggers who value nature above human life .. I'd bet every professed witch is for abortion and planet population reduction .. And planet earth can comfortably hold another 60 billion ..

 

[Moses_Young]

Above I cited to an article where 24 of the 82 infected died in a nursing home. The numbers speak for themselves.

No. The numbers say that 24 people died in a nursing home. How can you (or your source) prove these people were infected with the "coronavirus" if the coronavirus itself has never been isolated, or yet even been proven to be infectious, let alone deadly? The test presumably used on the people is most likely the test whose inventor explicitly said could *not* reliably be used for disease diagnosis, and a test that really identifies exosomes produced in bodies that are sick (i.e. all of us when we get sick), not a test that identifies some mysterious "coronavirus". See post 422339, below. A study has found this so called "coronavirus" (actually genetic material containing exosomes naturally produced by all sick people) much more common than the mainstream media would have you believe. No virus has been isolated or proven to exist.

This argument is ridiculous. This is probably why the China figures are so low and unreliable. They are citing it to old age and other causes. If a person tested positive for the virus, they died because of the virus.

As above. You can't test for a virus if you first haven't proved it even exists. All they have proven thus far is the existence of genetic material. As more research will tell (and is telling), this genetic material is present in all of us when we get sick. It is a symptom, like runny nose or a cough, not a cause.

If someone dies in a car crash while driving a red car, was it the colour of the car that killed him? Even if you analyse 100 victims, and 25% died in red cars? If he tests positive for coronavirus after the crash, did he really die of coronavirus?

Wow. I dare you to be in a room full of Covid victims...without protective gear.

People sharing my beliefs have offered. It's no big deal. There is no virus. Most of the sick are victims of seasonal colds and flus. Those who died are mostly cancer and terminal patients, and they died of these, whilst testing positive for coronavirus. Not surprising as most of us will test positive if tests run to completion (say 60 cycles) when we are sick. Just compare the total death statistics for this year compared to previous years. If coronavirus were really killing all these people the mainstream media is claiming, there would be a massive change in death numbers. There is no change.

The small fraction of victims remaining, as described by the doctor from New York who posted his findings to Youtube before being censored, are dying due to the effects of 5G causing oxygen deprivation (i.e. their lungs seem to be functioning normally, but they are not uptaking oxygen).

Stanford just published a study...not yet peer reviewed, but given the time constraints I'm glad, besides which peer review in my books has been largely shown to be a sham with so many documented cases of outright fraud.

Here's a cut and paste:

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

The implications of this could be huge.....it would mean that a massive number of people have come into contact with the virus and that it didn't affect them....and it might provide an indication that so called 'herd immunity' might be much closer than we previously thought. Here's the link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-pEVLTseLoe-P3PwnO2HO8uDEHbFITUk8OEe_ayRQiAPw

This study aligns with what I've been saying. The so-called coronavirus has never been isolated. All that has been done to ID coronavirus is take genetic material of some people with symptoms of the flu, and claim this genetic material to be coronavirus. The truth is, the genetic material contains exosomes, which are mistaken to be a virus, but in fact are excretions of the cells produced by all bodies when they get respiratory sickness (including lung cancer). The whole "coronavirus" episode is a big scam, except for the small percentage of people with perfectly functioning lungs who die of oxygen deprivation. This sickness is likely caused by 5G radiation.

 

[Moses_Young]

Agree... one University is working on a nasal spray as a vaccine.
Hard for that to be the mark of the beast.

Also hard for it to be a vaccination.

Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. ... The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them.

 

[EleventhHour]

Not everyone with COVID-19 get SARS or Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Just like you can have SARS that is caused by something other than COVID-19.

I am not sure what you are stating here but Covid-19 is the name of the disease.

SARS CoV-2 is the name of the virus, this virus is considered a SARS virus.

It is an acute respiratory system virus.

 

[JohnR7]

I am not sure what you are stating here but Covid-19 is the name of the disease.

SARS CoV-2 is the name of the virus, this virus is considered a SARS virus.

It is an acute respiratory system virus.

Maybe today, tomorrow they will call it something else.

 

[JohnR7]

Also hard for it to be a vaccination.

Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. ... The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them.

So why don't they just harvest the antibodies of the people that already have them?

 

[EleventhHour]

Maybe today, tomorrow they will call it something else.

Not likely.

 

[EleventhHour]

So why don't they just harvest the antibodies of the people that already have them?

That only provides passive resistance and only lasts a short while.

It may also slow down the bodies development of its own antibodies which is so necessary against the virus and therefore place the person at risk for re-infection.
A vaccine provides long term immunity because it stimulates the body to create its own antibodies.

 

[TheIndianGirl]

There is no virus.

So, there is no Chinese virus/Wuhan Virus/Covid 19?

 

[Moses_Young]

So, there is no Chinese virus/Wuhan Virus/Covid 19?

There is no proof of a virus - sicknesses, yes, but no proof that all (or any) sicknesses are related, are due to a virus, or share a single, common cause.

If COVID-1984 existed, why haven't they isolated the virus and demonstrated it causes the symptoms they say it does, and proved that it is indeed infectious? Such a process could then be called science, aligned with the four criteria of Koch's postulates (accepted as the scientific criteria for establishing a causative relationship between an agent and an infectious disease since 1884).

When people have challenged governments and advisors on this, instead of debating, governments censor. As the truth fears no investigation, the only conclusion one can reach is conspiracy.