|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 24, 2021 17:26:42 GMT
A very simple question: why were there so many less flu cases reported this season compared to last season? I forget the term, and I'm too lazy to bother looking it up, but there is a thing where a 'superior' virus actually reduces the impact of lesser viruses. It's happened before with the Swine and Avian flu, when they sweep through Asia regular influenza drops off, like off a cliff 'drops off'. I was reading scientifical articles about it last year right around Marchish, if I recall correctly. Here's the thing: 1. If masks and social distancing stop covid-19 because it's a respiratory virus spread by close contact, then it should also stop influenza, RSV, HIB, and common colds also. 2. Influenza is in the tank while COVID had a typical peak in cold/flu season. 3. Rhinovirus causing common colds cases were not stopped at all - in fact - there were more cases than last year. 4. Adenovirus cases didn't tank - they were stable numbers of infections as compared to just year. 5. Places with mask and lockdown mandates did not fare better than places without - all of the curves for multiple locations (US state-to-state or European nation-nation) converge - that is - location x with mandates initially does a little better but then the number of cases rises and eventually is close to, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than location y that didn't mandate. So - if masks and social distancing actually worked because flu cases are down, as the pundits claim, then they ought to have made *all* respiratory diseases become almost non-existent - including covid. That didn't happen at all. This study in the link below does a really good job of explaining why the models everyone relied upon are wrong when it comes to how covid (or other virus infections) actually spread - and why epidemics/pandemics die out well before you actually reach herd immunity (i.e. before everyone is vaccinated or infected and recovers). It's a 6-page read, so I'm sure you won't have any issues with it - the intro and conclusion suffice if you don't care about the math. The essential conclusion is that lockdowns/social distancing result in an extended period of linear growth in cases rather than the quicker exponential growth in infected, followed by recovered, resulting in the inability to continue an epidemic. That is - without all of these measures, we'd be done and over with this pandemic already and the only thing we're doing now by masks and social distancing is prolonging it. www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/37/22684.full.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 24, 2021 17:57:57 GMT
I forget the term, and I'm too lazy to bother looking it up, but there is a thing where a 'superior' virus actually reduces the impact of lesser viruses. It's happened before with the Swine and Avian flu, when they sweep through Asia regular influenza drops off, like off a cliff 'drops off'. I was reading scientifical articles about it last year right around Marchish, if I recall correctly. Here's the thing: 1. If masks and social distancing stop covid-19 because it's a respiratory virus spread by close contact, then it should also stop influenza, RSV, HIB, and common colds also. 2. Influenza is in the tank while COVID had a typical peak in cold/flu season. 3. Rhinovirus causing common colds cases were not stopped at all - in fact - there were more cases than last year. 4. Adenovirus cases didn't tank - they were stable numbers of infections as compared to just year. 5. Places with mask and lockdown mandates did not fare better than places without - all of the curves for multiple locations (US state-to-state or European nation-nation) converge - that is - location x with mandates initially does a little better but then the number of cases rises and eventually is close to, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than location y that didn't mandate. So - if masks and social distancing actually worked because flu cases are down, as the pundits claim, then they ought to have made *all* respiratory diseases become almost non-existent - including covid. That didn't happen at all. This study in the link below does a really good job of explaining why the models everyone relied upon are wrong when it comes to how covid (or other virus infections) actually spread - and why epidemics/pandemics die out well before you actually reach herd immunity (i.e. before everyone is vaccinated or infected and recovers). It's a 6-page read, so I'm sure you won't have any issues with it - the intro and conclusion suffice if you don't care about the math. The essential conclusion is that lockdowns/social distancing result in an extended period of linear growth in cases rather than the quicker exponential growth in infected, followed by recovered, resulting in the inability to continue an epidemic. That is - without all of these measures, we'd be done and over with this pandemic already and the only thing we're doing now by masks and social distancing is prolonging it. www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/37/22684.full.pdf1. It does. Why do you think asians have worn masks for years prior to Covid? 2. Covid peaked at several points, not just during cold/flu season. 3. Colds are not flus. Stop with the Red Herrings. 4. See above. 5. That's because there were a huge percentage of fools like you who refused to wear them and spread Covid around. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Mar 24, 2021 18:10:20 GMT
They would have probably been listed as having died from pneumonia, though I bet that they would have listed the flu as a contributing factor if, in fact, it WAS. Here's the thing I'm getting at. If you're hospitalized because of COVID-19 and you die, it's pretty certain that COVID-19 had something to do with that death. Sure, you might have had something that made it more likely that it would do so, but that doesn't mean that other thing killed you. I have a friend who is wheelchair capable, due to ALS. Her disease is progressing very slowly, so it will likely be years before she dies from it. If she gets COVID-19, it's highly likely to kill her. YOU'RE saying that in that case she died from ALS, and I'M saying that's bullshit, she would have died from COVID-19 (it's not likely for her to get it, because she doesn't go out, but it's still a worry). The issue is that she (or anyone with comborbidities) is more susceptible to catching *any* respiratory disease - and I would expect them to be listed as contributory. With covid, however, all too often it is listed *as* the cause of death rather than a contributing factor, even when clearly not causing the death, or even in cases where the person caught covid but recovered and then later died of something unrelated within 30 days of the covid positive result. We've all seen the well-publicized examples of "he died of a car crash but tested positive for covid 3 weeks ago, so we're listing it as a covid death even though he recovered from it" and it's entirely disingenuous for anything to possibly claim that covid was the cause of death. It's not common that anyone has JUST COVID-19 listed in their cause of death. When it happens it's human error. Most of the time, it's not actually COVID-19 that causes death in any case. There are a ton of different effects that it has on the body, and often those are listed as the cause of death. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 24, 2021 18:41:18 GMT
Here's the thing: 1. If masks and social distancing stop covid-19 because it's a respiratory virus spread by close contact, then it should also stop influenza, RSV, HIB, and common colds also. 2. Influenza is in the tank while COVID had a typical peak in cold/flu season. 3. Rhinovirus causing common colds cases were not stopped at all - in fact - there were more cases than last year. 4. Adenovirus cases didn't tank - they were stable numbers of infections as compared to just year. 5. Places with mask and lockdown mandates did not fare better than places without - all of the curves for multiple locations (US state-to-state or European nation-nation) converge - that is - location x with mandates initially does a little better but then the number of cases rises and eventually is close to, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than location y that didn't mandate. So - if masks and social distancing actually worked because flu cases are down, as the pundits claim, then they ought to have made *all* respiratory diseases become almost non-existent - including covid. That didn't happen at all. This study in the link below does a really good job of explaining why the models everyone relied upon are wrong when it comes to how covid (or other virus infections) actually spread - and why epidemics/pandemics die out well before you actually reach herd immunity (i.e. before everyone is vaccinated or infected and recovers). It's a 6-page read, so I'm sure you won't have any issues with it - the intro and conclusion suffice if you don't care about the math. The essential conclusion is that lockdowns/social distancing result in an extended period of linear growth in cases rather than the quicker exponential growth in infected, followed by recovered, resulting in the inability to continue an epidemic. That is - without all of these measures, we'd be done and over with this pandemic already and the only thing we're doing now by masks and social distancing is prolonging it. www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/37/22684.full.pdf1. It does. Why do you think asians have worn masks for years prior to Covid? 2. Covid peaked at several points, not just during cold/flu season. 3. Colds are not flus. Stop with the Red Herrings. 4. See above. 5. That's because there were a huge percentage of fools like you who refused to wear them and spread Covid around. If you didn't even bother to read the study I linked to, I'm not going to bother refuting all of your incorrect points. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 24, 2021 21:02:09 GMT
1. It does. Why do you think asians have worn masks for years prior to Covid? 2. Covid peaked at several points, not just during cold/flu season. 3. Colds are not flus. Stop with the Red Herrings. 4. See above. 5. That's because there were a huge percentage of fools like you who refused to wear them and spread Covid around. If you didn't even bother to read the study I linked to, I'm not going to bother refuting all of your incorrect points. That paper(not study) that was written by three physicists(not people whose specialty is epidemics) and which is based on outdated information, like barely after Covid got off the ground? That "study?" The one that doesn't even purport to know why, but only give a possible reason? That "study?" |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 24, 2021 21:47:28 GMT
If you didn't even bother to read the study I linked to, I'm not going to bother refuting all of your incorrect points. That paper(not study) that was written by three physicists(not people whose specialty is epidemics) and which is based on outdated information, like barely after Covid got off the ground? That "study?" The one that doesn't even purport to know why, but only give a possible reason? That "study?" Call it what you want, it doesn't refute the hypothesis they present. I'll try to explain this so it is easier for you to understand. 1. Experts claim that masks and social distancing prevent the transmission of respiratory diseases - flu, adenoviruses, covid-19, RSV, etc. 2. There was a precipitous drop in flu cases this season. Experts attribute this to the covid measures, even when the drop in flu cases occurred in places that didn't and don't have mask and distancing mandates. 3. Covid-19 cases continued to rise during cold and flu season even in places where mask mandates and social distancing mandates were in place. *You* claim that was because people chose to violate those mandates. Yet if that were the case, flu cases would also occur. Explain to me how flu cases could drop regardless of mandates and covid-19 cases could rise regardless of mandates - and in the same locations (that is - location A has mandates and Location B doesn't. Yet both locations exhibited drops in flu cases and both locations also saw continuing rises in covid-19 cases) if masks and social distancing actually work the way the "experts" claim - even though this paper clearly showed that the "experts" understand nothing of the network effects on the transmission of disease, resulting in their models and predictions being completely incorrect. Here's the latest weekly report on the flu and ILI in that terrorist state Florida without their mask and lockdown mandates: www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/influenza/_documents/2021-w11-flu-review.pdfGuess what - flu is way down in comparison to the last three years. They had *4* cases of flu in the last 14 weeks and a total of *7* for the entire season. You know what *is* continuing to infect people? Rhinovirus. Compare that to the bastion of goodness California with their continued lockdowns and masks. www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Immunization/Week2020-2110_FINALReport.pdf109 cases since the start of the season. Tell me again that masks and social distancing work... I presented links to articles that hypothesize that rhinoviruses cause an interferon response that can prevent covid-19 from infecting people, and that prior infection with other coronavirus strains could potentially result in some form of immunity. The paper you are disparaging hypothesizes that masks and social distancing don't prevent pandemics - all they do is prolong them. All of the data points to these hypotheses as likely being on the right track. But hey, you continue on with mask mandates and lockdowns and watch that 500k number continue to linearly increase for the next year or two. Have fun with that. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 25, 2021 2:02:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 25, 2021 2:19:46 GMT
That paper(not study) that was written by three physicists(not people whose specialty is epidemics) and which is based on outdated information, like barely after Covid got off the ground? That "study?" The one that doesn't even purport to know why, but only give a possible reason? That "study?" Call it what you want, it doesn't refute the hypothesis they present. I'll try to explain this so it is easier for you to understand. 1. Experts claim that masks and social distancing prevent the transmission of respiratory diseases - flu, adenoviruses, covid-19, RSV, etc. 2. There was a precipitous drop in flu cases this season. Experts attribute this to the covid measures, even when the drop in flu cases occurred in places that didn't and don't have mask and distancing mandates. 3. Covid-19 cases continued to rise during cold and flu season even in places where mask mandates and social distancing mandates were in place. *You* claim that was because people chose to violate those mandates. Yet if that were the case, flu cases would also occur. Explain to me how flu cases could drop regardless of mandates and covid-19 cases could rise regardless of mandates - and in the same locations (that is - location A has mandates and Location B doesn't. Yet both locations exhibited drops in flu cases and both locations also saw continuing rises in covid-19 cases) if masks and social distancing actually work the way the "experts" claim - even though this paper clearly showed that the "experts" understand nothing of the network effects on the transmission of disease, resulting in their models and predictions being completely incorrect. Here's the latest weekly report on the flu and ILI in that terrorist state Florida without their mask and lockdown mandates: www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/influenza/_documents/2021-w11-flu-review.pdfGuess what - flu is way down in comparison to the last three years. They had *4* cases of flu in the last 14 weeks and a total of *7* for the entire season. You know what *is* continuing to infect people? Rhinovirus. Compare that to the bastion of goodness California with their continued lockdowns and masks. www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Immunization/Week2020-2110_FINALReport.pdf109 cases since the start of the season. Tell me again that masks and social distancing work... I presented links to articles that hypothesize that rhinoviruses cause an interferon response that can prevent covid-19 from infecting people, and that prior infection with other coronavirus strains could potentially result in some form of immunity. The paper you are disparaging hypothesizes that masks and social distancing don't prevent pandemics - all they do is prolong them. All of the data points to these hypotheses as likely being on the right track. But hey, you continue on with mask mandates and lockdowns and watch that 500k number continue to linearly increase for the next year or two. Have fun with that. Yep, yep. I didn't refute the conclusions of 3 unqualified professors using outdated information and they didn't refute mine. They gave a guess as to a possible reason. Big deal. Find me something recent by Epidemiologists if you want me to start giving it credence. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 25, 2021 11:23:31 GMT
He can't. Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers use the same ploys. Get some official looking studies, dress them up in Paint Shop or some other editor and hope nobody looks at them real close.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 25, 2021 13:32:44 GMT
He can't. Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers use the same ploys. Get some official looking studies, dress them up in Paint Shop or some other editor and hope nobody looks at them real close. So, in your mind (such as it were), a peer-reviewed and journal-published paper was intentionally edited in a computer program to magically change its contents and then switched out and *no one*, not even the publisher, would notice? Time to change your tinfoil hat. Just admit that you have nothing to respond with because you can't refute the hypotheses presented. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 25, 2021 14:24:37 GMT
He can't. Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Maskers use the same ploys. Get some official looking studies, dress them up in Paint Shop or some other editor and hope nobody looks at them real close. So, in your mind (such as it were), a peer-reviewed and journal-published paper was intentionally edited in a computer program to magically change its contents and then switched out and *no one*, not even the publisher, would notice? Time to change your tinfoil hat. Just admit that you have nothing to respond with because you can't refute the hypotheses presented. It was written by three physicists using outdated information. If they had written a paper on Quarks, I'd listen more closely, but hell, even 3 Podiatrists are better qualified to write a paper on the virus. At least they went to medical school. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 25, 2021 15:27:56 GMT
So, in your mind (such as it were), a peer-reviewed and journal-published paper was intentionally edited in a computer program to magically change its contents and then switched out and *no one*, not even the publisher, would notice? Time to change your tinfoil hat. Just admit that you have nothing to respond with because you can't refute the hypotheses presented. It was written by three physicists using outdated information. If they had written a paper on Quarks, I'd listen more closely, but hell, even 3 Podiatrists are better qualified to write a paper on the virus. At least they went to medical school. A paper written in May 2020 and published two months later is not out of date information. That they are physicists is irrelevant. You appear to be choosing to ignore that they work for an Austrian university in the Medical Statistics unit is entirely relevant. They are *used* to dealing with statistics associated with epidemics. By your thinking, you should, for example, be trying to find fault with Fauci because he is most definitely not an epidemiologist. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 25, 2021 16:22:02 GMT
It was written by three physicists using outdated information. If they had written a paper on Quarks, I'd listen more closely, but hell, even 3 Podiatrists are better qualified to write a paper on the virus. At least they went to medical school. A paper written in May 2020 and published two months later is not out of date information. That they are physicists is irrelevant. You appear to be choosing to ignore that they work for an Austrian university in the Medical Statistics unit is entirely relevant. They are *used* to dealing with statistics associated with epidemics. By your thinking, you should, for example, be trying to find fault with Fauci because he is most definitely not an epidemiologist. Yes it is. VERY out of date. It's almost a year old and we were/are discovering new things about Covid weekly. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 25, 2021 17:41:53 GMT
A paper written in May 2020 and published two months later is not out of date information. That they are physicists is irrelevant. You appear to be choosing to ignore that they work for an Austrian university in the Medical Statistics unit is entirely relevant. They are *used* to dealing with statistics associated with epidemics. By your thinking, you should, for example, be trying to find fault with Fauci because he is most definitely not an epidemiologist. Yes it is. VERY out of date. It's almost a year old and we were/are discovering new things about Covid weekly. *None* of the new things being discovered has *anything* to do with the network effects of epidemic/pandemic infection transmission. If it did, we'd have seen vastly different governmental policies during the winter rather than the "continue to wear masks and distance - even if you got a vaccine" monotone. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Mar 25, 2021 18:21:11 GMT
|
|
