Pandemic started in a lab:

[probinson]

Source: ”Dolde osäkerhet genom att skälla ut Sverige” | SvD

 

[stevil]

Much of Sweden's problems at the beginning were related to ill-advised policies in long-term care facilities, much like in the US.

Yes, their problems are due to their ill-advised policies.
They took very little measures to slow the spread, and so the disease went rampant through their population and killed people at the rate of 1% of those infected. This is a very high rate and was disastrous.

I'm pleased to see you acknowledge natural immunity. It's been tough to get most people to acknowledge that natural immunity is a thing.

Yes, of course. People get immunity from the vaccine or from catching the disease (and surviving)
From those that get the vaccine very few die (from the vaccine), from those that get the disease at least 1% die.

Lower curve? Not so much.

We are talking about lowering the curve of those that need hospital care and of those that die.
Initially it was the lowering the curve of the infection rate.
As time went on the disease became much more contagious, but as people got vaccinated the hopitalisation rate and death rate reduced massively.

Why would you expect the excess death rate to rise in highly vaccinated countries once they opened up? Wasn't the whole point of the lockdowns so that everyone could get vaccinated and reduce death?

Because now people are catching the disease in much higher numbers.
Consider this.
The death rate for unvaccinated is 1%
The death rate for vaccinated is 0.1%

NZ has about 5 million people
1% of 5 million is 50k people
0.1% of 5 million people is 5k people
NZ opened up only once all the people had had a chance to get fully vaccinated.
At the time we opened up (in 2022) we had around 100 dead, since we opened up we have had almost 4k die.
We would expect at least 5k to die at the vaccinated rate of 0.1%. (by the way we have about 200k people who are unvacinated) they will account for an additional 2K deaths in the long term. I won't be surprised if NZ ends up with 7k dead from Covid once everyone has finally caught the disease.

The reason why people weren't dying in 2020 and 2021 is that our Covid measures of lockdowns, masks, and managed borders worked and saved many lives.

Wasn't the whole point of the lockdowns so that everyone could get vaccinated and reduce death? Sure, there might be a small spike when the vulnerable are exposed to the virus, but if the vaccines really were 95% effective at preventing severe disease and death as we were told, why would you expect a country like the UK, that did masking and lockdowns and all the "right" things, to have the worst excess mortality in 50 years?

Understand the variables and then do the math.

Lockdown advocates don't get to claim ignorance now because they were too foolish to listen to those very real warnings.

The problem as I see it, is you are still harping on about this, when you haven't even addressed the facts and the math and logic that I went to the trouble to find and present.
You seem fixated to hold onto your belief and appear to be doing the "don't look up" thing here.
Please address the numbers of total deaths vs deaths by corona virus that I have found and presented here which shows an almost total correlation for each year that excess deaths matches the deaths by corona virus.
I took the time to research this and find the answers, the least you could do is look at those numbers and correlation and provide your assessment.

 

[stevil]

Lockdown advocates don't get to claim ignorance now because they were too foolish to listen to those very real warnings.

BTW probinson

Thanks for bringing to my attention this idea that lockdowns and corona virus prevention has caused more deaths than it has saved.
It gave me the opportunity to look at the numbers and see that this is definitely not the case, but at least now I know for sure.
I'm openminded either way. Noone knows for sure what is the best approach during a pandemic, but it is always good to look back and assess especially when different countries have taken vastly different approaches. All this helps to inform us on how to address the next pandemic.

By the way, I'd be interested to know where you got this idea from, and where you got the idea to look at the excess deaths (i think this is a good idea to look at this variable) and how you got to the conclusions you presented? (those conclusions were faulty, perhaps obscured in the way the excess deaths were presented) Did you come up with this yourself? Or did you receive mailouts or read articles on social media, or did you see this on a particular news show?

 

[probinson]

Yes, their problems are due to their ill-advised policies.
They took very little measures to slow the spread, and so the disease went rampant through their population and killed people at the rate of 1% of those infected. This is a very high rate and was disastrous.

Except, that's not what happened at all. Like everywhere else, the mortality rate for COVID was largely age-stratified. So putting elderly people together in close quarters in long-term care facilities was probably the worst thing that anyone could have done. It's also why NYC had such a massive amount of mortality at the beginning of the pandemic, as did my state of PA. Policies that told COVID positive LTC residents that they should be discharged and sent back to the facility were remarkably foolish and exacted an immense toll on the vulnerable elderly.

Yes, of course. People get immunity from the vaccine or from catching the disease (and surviving)
From those that get the vaccine very few die (from the vaccine), from those that get the disease at least 1% die.

This isn't even remotely close to accurate.

Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years.​

​

*The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.​

​

*At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.​

​

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies

The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and...

www.medrxiv.org

​

We are talking about lowering the curve of those that need hospital care and of those that die.
Initially it was the lowering the curve of the infection rate.
As time went on the disease became much more contagious, but as people got vaccinated the hopitalisation rate and death rate reduced massively.

Because now people are catching the disease in much higher numbers.
Consider this.
The death rate for unvaccinated is 1%
The death rate for vaccinated is 0.1%

Citation needed. You're just making these numbers up.

If we trust the US CDC data, at no point in the pandemic were you more than 10x as likely die if you were unvaccinated. And as is the case with all relative figures we need to look at the absolutes. That the numbers were "4x as high" at the last recorded data point, the absolute difference was 0.4 vs 0.1 per 100,000 people. These are ridiculously low numbers. Even at the peak, they were 2 and 4 (2x difference) per 100,000 people.

NZ has about 5 million people
1% of 5 million is 50k people
0.1% of 5 million people is 5k people

I'd like to point out again that these are completely fabricated percentages.

Let's look at New Zealand's data by vaccination status.

Source: COVID-19: Case demographics

Feel free to double check my math, but here's what we see from that data.

2,872 of 80,277 unvaccinated people who got COVID ended up hospitalized. That's 3.58%
143 of 80,277 unvaccinated people who got COVID ended up in the ICU. That's 0.18%

20,464 of 1,897,495 people who received at least one dose of vaccine and got COVID anyway were hospitalized. That's 1.08%
523 of 1,897,495 people who received at least one does of vaccine and got COVID anyway ended up in the ICU. That's 0.03%

With that in mind, the data shows that vaccinated people were about 3.3x more likely to be hospitalized, not anywhere near the 10x you've implied. So since the rest of your analysis is based on the incorrect notion that unvaccinated people were 10x more likely to die than vaccinated, the rest is incorrect as well.

The reason why people weren't dying in 2020 and 2021 is that our Covid measures of lockdowns, masks, and managed borders worked and saved many lives.

Except for the poor schlubs that still had to go to work every day and deliver food to the laptop class.

Understand the variables and then do the math.

Use correct and real figures.

The problem as I see it, is you are still harping on about this, when you haven't even addressed the facts and the math and logic that I went to the trouble to find and present.

Sure I have. Your numbers are fabricated nonsense.

You seem fixated to hold onto your belief and appear to be doing the "don't look up" thing here.
Please address the numbers of total deaths vs deaths by corona virus that I have found and presented here which shows an almost total correlation for each year that excess deaths matches the deaths by corona virus.
I took the time to research this and find the answers, the least you could do is look at those numbers and correlation and provide your assessment.

Now that I've done that, I look forward to your response.

 

[probinson]

BTW probinson

Thanks for bringing to my attention this idea that lockdowns and corona virus prevention has caused more deaths than it has saved.
It gave me the opportunity to look at the numbers and see that this is definitely not the case, but at least now I know for sure.

It's absolutely amazing how yesterday, you didn't even know this was a thing, and now less than 24 hours later, you are 100% certain that it's wrong. If only we all possessed such astounding (and super speedy!) researching abilities!

I'm openminded either way.

Hmm. The jury is still out for me, but I'm pretty doubtful.

Noone knows for sure what is the best approach during a pandemic, but it is always good to look back and assess especially when different countries have taken vastly different approaches. All this helps to inform us on how to address the next pandemic.

Perhaps you could answer a question I've asked many times before that never gets an answer.

Every pandemic preparedness plan that had been established on decades of sound science was tossed out the window in favor of the untested Chinese lockdown method. You can go back a few pages in this thread and read multiple excerpts from those plans.

Why do you think that those pandemic preparedness plans were all discarded? Sweden actually was the only country to stick to the plan. Those plans warned of inefficacy of masking. They warned of long-term consequences. Why were they all suddenly ignored?

By the way, I'd be interested to know where you got this idea from, and where you got the idea to look at the excess deaths (i think this is a good idea to look at this variable) and how you got to the conclusions you presented?

It's not exactly rocket science. Public health is ostensibly about protecting, um, public health. The myopic focus on COVID is and always has been remarkably foolish. There are always tradeoffs to our actions. So if we save people from dying from COVID but instead throw 97 million people into poverty that they can't escape (and we know that poverty is correlated with poorer health outcomes) then what have we accomplished really?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/26/business/global-poverty-covid-pandemic-intl-hnk/index.html

(those conclusions were faulty, perhaps obscured in the way the excess deaths were presented) Did you come up with this yourself? Or did you receive mailouts or read articles on social media, or did you see this on a particular news show?

I read many different sources. But in all cases, I verify information for myself. It's why instead of just spouting off numbers (like you did in your above analysis), I make it a point to find data and post my sources so you can verify for yourself.

And I'm not sure why you think the conclusions are faulty. It's concerning that excess mortality is at alarming figures, and most of it is not attributable to COVID. So if there is a a low COVID mortality rate but a much higher than expected excess mortality rate, how is that indicative of a successful pandemic strategy?

 

[stevil]

It's absolutely amazing how yesterday, you didn't even know this was a thing, and now less than 24 hours later, you are 100% certain that it's wrong. If only we all possessed such astounding (and super speedy!) researching abilities!

I've done the research and found the numbers and found the strong correlation between uptick in excess deaths and the deaths by Covid. They are so very close, they almost exactly match. There isn't any room for significant amounts of increases in suicide and domestic violence without having significant decreases in deaths in other areas.

My determination is based on the numbers, the facts.
NZ saw an increase of 4k deaths in 2022. We had 4k deaths due to Corona virus. Same pattern for Norway, Denmark and Finland.
The data is pretty conclusive, which is why I am so confident in my conclusion that I formed today.

I am open to you critiquing it, but you haven't bothered to so far.

Perhaps you could answer a question I've asked many times before that never gets an answer.

Every pandemic preparedness plan that had been established on decades of sound science was tossed out the window in favor of the untested Chinese lockdown method. You can go back a few pages in this thread and read multiple excerpts from those plans.

Why do you think that those pandemic preparedness plans were all discarded?

I have no understanding of what those plans were. And this is irrelevant to the question of whether the lockdowns and masking and vaccines saved lives and whether the lockdowns and masking and vaccines cause other deaths.
No relevancy at all.

Sweden actually was the only country to stick to the plan. Those plans warned of inefficacy of masking. They warned of long-term consequences. Why were they all suddenly ignored?

I'm interested in this concept of long term consequences of lockdowns.
I spent time yesterday looking at the excess deaths and the deaths due to the virus and I have found that there is very little excess deaths (if at all) due to anything other than Coronavirus deaths.

It's not exactly rocket science. Public health is ostensibly about protecting, um, public health. The myopic focus on COVID is and always has been remarkably foolish. There are always tradeoffs to our actions. So if we save people from dying from COVID but instead throw 97 million people into poverty that they can't escape (and we know that poverty is correlated with poorer health outcomes) then what have we accomplished really?

Your claim wasn't about poverty, but was about deaths presumably from suicide and domestic violence etc.
The actual numbers don't show that. The uptick in excess deaths correlate very strongly with the counted Covid deaths.

I read many different sources. But in all cases, I verify information for myself. It's why instead of just spouting off numbers (like you did in your above analysis), I make it a point to find data and post my sources so you can verify for yourself.

I posted links to my sources of data in post 79

Sweden excess deaths 2023| Statista

Sweden saw a period of excess deaths in 2022, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

www.statista.com

Sweden COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

Sweden Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

These two sites give the data. Get to these sites for each country in question.

The statista site gives the total deaths per year for a country
The worldometers site gives the total deaths from Corona virus per year for a country.

For NZ
total deaths per year
2017 33,342
2018 33,225
2019 34,260
2020 32,613
2021 34,932
2022 38,574

Covid deaths per year
2019 0
2020 30
2021 29
2022 3,944

Notice how 2022 saw around 4,000 deaths than usual, notice how 2022 saw almost 4,000 deaths from Corona virus.


Do the same thing for Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden


The data is there. I don't need to convince you any further. I have satisfied my own thirst for knowledge here. Whether you decide to look at the numbers or or not is upto you. Whether you decide to continue promoting a debunked idea online is upto you.
You have every right to "Don't look up". It's upto you.

 

[probinson]

Here's some more data on excess mortality from 2020-2022. It shows the overall excess mortality vs. COVID mortality in various countries.

This is quite illustrative of what I've been talking about. We've heard comparisons of Sweden and New Zealand, and how New Zealand has fared so much better than Sweden in COVID mortality. And that's true. Sweden's COVID mortality is 1,808 per million vs. New Zealand's 202 per million. If this is your only metric, then New Zealand wins by a landslide.

Not so fast, bub.

Sweden's cumulative excess mortality percentage is 6.7% while New Zealand's is 15.5%.

So, hooray for New Zealand for reducing COVID deaths, but shouldn't we be concerned and question why excess mortality is >15% higher than historic levels? Obviously it wasn't COVID that resulted in this excess mortality, so why is it so much higher than Sweden when clearly Sweden had far greater COVID mortality? What caused this excess mortality if not COVID? These are questions that deserve answers.

The point is, the public health establishment, amplified by the media, has been hyper focused on COVID to the exclusion of everything else. But now that excess mortality numbers are being publicized, it's making people question what we actually gained.

It is absolutely imperative that an impartial, objective analysis is done on the COVID pandemic measures to understand the very real costs associated with taking such unprecedented, draconian measures.

 

[stevil]

Except, that's not what happened at all. Like everywhere else, the mortality rate for COVID was largely age-stratified.

I agree that the death rates change buy the age groups.
But, overall the rates average out to be 1% for the unvaccinated and 0.1% for the vaccinated

I'd like to point out again that these are completely fabricated percentages.

Let's look at New Zealand's data by vaccination status.


2,872 of 80,277 unvaccinated people who got COVID ended up hospitalized. That's 3.58%
143 of 80,277 unvaccinated people who got COVID ended up in the ICU. That's 0.18%

Why are you presenting hospitalisation rates and ICU rates?
We are talking about death rates.

Use correct and real figures.

Are you saying the statista site and the worldometers site are wrong in presenting the total deaths and the deaths by Corona virus per year?
My statement about the 1% and 0.1% are largely irrelevant because we aren't even arguing about the efficacy of the vaccine

What we are disagreeing on is the Excess death to Corona virus death correlation.
You can determine that just by looking at the yearly total deaths and the yearly corona virus deaths.

Why haven't you addressed this? Why haven't you address why NZ have 4,000 additional deaths in 2022 and why NZ had 4,000 deaths by corona virus in 2022? We can pick another country if you would like. We can look at Norway or Denmark or Finland, they are closely situated to Sweden.
Take your pick.

 

[stevil]

Citation needed. You're just making these numbers up.

View attachment 329105

If we trust the US CDC data, at no point in the pandemic were you more than 10x as likely die if you were unvaccinated. And as is the case with all relative figures we need to look at the absolutes. That the numbers were "4x as high" at the last recorded data point, the absolute difference was 0.4 vs 0.1 per 100,000 people. These are ridiculously low numbers. Even at the peak, they were 2 and 4 (2x difference) per 100,000 people.



Now that I've done that, I look forward to your response.

Let's go to this site

How do death rates from COVID-19 differ between people who are vaccinated and those who are not?

To understand how the pandemic is evolving, it’s crucial to know how death rates from COVID-19 are affected by vaccination status.

ourworldindata.org

If you scroll down to the section titled "Data on COVID-19 mortality by vaccination status"
You can see a chart for deaths in USA by vaccination status. It's shape looks very similar to the one you presented above.
The chart gives a weekly death rate by vaccination status. It's not showing death rates of infected people but instead it is showing the death rates by total population.
On Oct 9 2021 you have 13.5 deaths in unvacinated per 100,000 unvaccinated population and 0.84 deaths by vaccinated per 100,000 vacciated population.
This shows the death rate 16x higher for unvacinated.
Jan 8 22 shows a peak on both lines, 34.2 for unvaccinated and 3.4 for vacinated a 10x difference
There is a low point on April 23 2022, 1.05 for unvaccinated and 0.25 for vacinated a 4x difference
June 4 2022 2.51 unvax, 0.51 vax a 5x difference
Aug 13 2022 3.87 unvax 0.66 vax a 5.8x difference
After Sept 24 the charts show a bivalent booster line.
Oct 1 2022 2.52 for unvax 0.2 with bivalent booster a 12.6x difference
Nov 19 2022 2.68 for unvax 0.25 with bivalent booster a 10.7 difference
Dec 3 2022 3.61 for unvax 0.33 with bivalent booster a 10.9 difference

As you can see, a fully vaccinated person is around 10 times less likely to die than an unvaccinated person.

But please note, this chart isn't showing the death rate for infected people. It is showing the death rate per population of vaccinated or unvaccinated people.

 

[probinson]

I agree that the death rates change buy the age groups.
But, overall the rates average out to be 1% for the unvaccinated and 0.1% for the vaccinated

Where are you coming up with those percentages?

Did you look at this (emphasis added)?

Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years.​

​

*The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.​

​

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies

The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and...

www.medrxiv.org

This is nowhere near 1%.

Why are you presenting hospitalisation rates and ICU rates?

Because vaccines were supposed to prevent severe disease and death. People with severe disease generally end up in the hospital and/or ICU. So the rates of people ending up in the hospital and/or dead dependent upon vaccination status is quite relevant to the discussion.

We are talking about death rates.

Are you saying the statista site and the worldometers site are wrong in presenting the total deaths and the deaths by Corona virus per year?
My statement about the 1% and 0.1% are largely irrelevant because we aren't even arguing about the efficacy of the vaccine

I want to understand where you're coming up with your 1% and 0.1% numbers. Can you provide a citation?

 

[rambot]

Your article states this.

Sweden's government is recommending wearing face masks on public transport during the rush hour, reversing its earlier Covid guidance.​

It will also cut from the current eight to four per table the number of people sitting together in restaurants, and ban alcohol sales after 20:00.​

​

Let's break it down. Sweden recommended masking for public transport during rush hour. This is not remotely the same thing as mandating masks everywhere you go.

Here's an article with a photo from 2021. Check out al the people without masks. Of everyone visible in the photo, only three are wearing masks. I've highlighted the caption that says Sweden doesn't have a mask mandate.

View attachment 329041

Source: No-lockdown Sweden broke with most of the world and didn't require face masks. Those who wear them say they're treated with suspicion and abuse.

Here's another article that explains that parts of Sweden had originally banned masks, but even after the mask recommendation was made, compliance was very low.

Swedish authorities maintained their anti-mask position until December, when the prime minister, Stefan Lofven, announced a U-turn on the use of masks on public transport. ​

​

But Lofven’s new policy was not a simple rule to wear masks when travelling. Instead, it recommends the use of masks from 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm, for those born “in 2004 and before” who do not have a reserved seat. If this sounds overly complicated, that’s because it is. ​

​

It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that compliance has been low, with only half of commuters actually wearing masks during rush hour.​

​

COVID: why are Swedish towns banning masks?

Masks between 7am and 9am for those born before 2005 – Sweden’s coronavirus policies are unnecessarily confusing.

theconversation.com

So yes, it is quite revisionist to claim that Sweden reversed their policies. In response to a immense public pressure campaign that tried to paint Sweden as callously gambling with its citizens' lives, some extremely limited recommendations were made. But compliance was exceedingly low even when those recommendations were made.

Sweden far and away took the most relaxed approach to COVID mitigation, yet now boasts the lowest excess death numbers in Europe.

Scandinavian countries are a special breed. And they will tell you the same hting. Compare scandinavian countries with each other and explain how well they performed.

 

[probinson]

Let's go to this site

How do death rates from COVID-19 differ between people who are vaccinated and those who are not?

To understand how the pandemic is evolving, it’s crucial to know how death rates from COVID-19 are affected by vaccination status.

ourworldindata.org

If you scroll down to the section titled "Data on COVID-19 mortality by vaccination status"
You can see a chart for deaths in USA by vaccination status. It's shape looks very similar to the one you presented above.
The chart gives a weekly death rate by vaccination status. It's not showing death rates of infected people but instead it is showing the death rates by total population.
On Oct 9 2021 you have 13.5 deaths in unvacinated per 100,000 unvaccinated population and 0.84 deaths by vaccinated per 100,000 vacciated population.
This shows the death rate 16x higher for unvacinated.
Jan 8 22 shows a peak on both lines, 34.2 for unvaccinated and 3.4 for vacinated a 10x difference
There is a low point on April 23 2022, 1.05 for unvaccinated and 0.25 for vacinated a 4x difference
June 4 2022 2.51 unvax, 0.51 vax a 5x difference
Aug 13 2022 3.87 unvax 0.66 vax a 5.8x difference
After Sept 24 the charts show a bivalent booster line.
Oct 1 2022 2.52 for unvax 0.2 with bivalent booster a 12.6x difference
Nov 19 2022 2.68 for unvax 0.25 with bivalent booster a 10.7 difference
Dec 3 2022 3.61 for unvax 0.33 with bivalent booster a 10.9 difference

As you can see, a fully vaccinated person is around 10 times less likely to die than an unvaccinated person.

Not really. Those numbers are per hundred thousand, and you're using the combined ALL age groups data instead of looking at age-stratified data. Why are you conflating healthy 20-year old men with frail 85-year old women?

Let's look at your first data point on October 9, 2021 of 13.5 per 100,000 vs 0.84 per 100,000. This is what that looks like in absolute terms.

13.5/100,000 = 0.0135%
0.84/100,000 = 0.0008%
Absolute risk reduction: 0.0127%

Notice how I had to go out to four decimal places to even show any differentiation.

So while it sounds quite grandiose to tell someone that they have a 1,600% (!) higher relative risk if they're not vaccinated, in reality, the absolute risk reduction, even using these numbers that are not age-stratified, is a measly 0.0127%. The reality is that those are incredibly tiny risks regardless of vaccination status.

When we look at that same chart for different age group on the same date, we see this (note, some of these numbers are apparently so low they can't be accurately represented with two decimal places)

12-17 - 0.00 for vaccinated and 0.07 for unvaccinated
18-29 - 0.00 for vaccinated and 0.26 for unvaccinated
30-49 - 0.08 for vaccinated and 0.29 for unvaccinated
50-64 - 0.58 for vaccinated and 12.32 for unvaccinated
65-79 - 2.20 for vaccinated and 52.03 for unvaccinated
80+ - 9.25 for vaccinated dan 72.26 for unvaccinated

You can see VASTLY different risks for different age-groups. It is incredibly dishonest to pretend like everyone is at the same risk across age groups. This is demonstrably untrue, and it in no way suggests that you are 10x more likely to die if you're unvaccinated (depending on your age).

While all of this is rather fascinating, it doesn't explain where you're getting your 0.1% and 1% numbers.

 

[rjs330]

None of this interesting discussion on vaccinations, lockdowns etc would be necessary if the virus would not have escaped the lab in Wuhan.

This is the labs fault and anyone who was associated with it including Fauci.

 

[rambot]

None of this interesting discussion on vaccinations, lockdowns etc would be necessary if the virus would not have escaped the lab in Wuhan.

This is the labs fault and anyone who was associated with it including Fauci.

I got no problem with saying this likely came from a lab.

But it's just illogical, partisan blindness to associate Fauci with that lab.

 

[Say it aint so]

New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market​

"An international team of virus experts said on Thursday that they had found genetic data from a market in Wuhan, China, linking the coronavirus with raccoon dogs for sale there, adding evidence to the case that the worst pandemic in a century could have been ignited by an infected animal that was being dealt through the illegal wildlife trade.​

​

The genetic data was drawn from swabs taken from in and around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market starting in January 2020, shortly after the Chinese authorities had shut down the market because of suspicions that it was linked to the outbreak of a new virus. By then, the animals had been cleared out, but researchers swabbed walls, floors, metal cages and carts often used for transporting animal cages." NYT​

I post this to reiterate one notion. We just don't know where it came from. Yes two of our seventeen agencies, one with moderate confidence one with low confidence view it came from a lab leak, while four others view it was natural. We, as in the USofA are not in a position to make absolute statements.

​

 

[stevil]

You can see VASTLY different risks for different age-groups. It is incredibly dishonest to pretend like everyone is at the same risk across age groups. This is demonstrably untrue, and it in no way suggests that you are 10x more likely to die if you're unvaccinated (depending on your age).

While all of this is rather fascinating, it doesn't explain where you're getting your 0.1% and 1% numbers.

From my previous research on the difference between unvaccinated and fully vacinated even broken up into various age groups, the difference was a 10x factor.

But, I tell you what. Once we finish up with our combined determination on the claim that lockdowns caused more deaths that it saved. Once we finish that. I will look into the latest data on death rates with regards to fullly vaccinated vs unvaccinated and see if the latest data is different to what I had previously researched.

Can you please discuss the findings and the correlation of excess deaths.
You were making a claim that Sweden had done really well, your claim was that NZ and Finland, and Denmark, and Norway had incurred more deaths due to the consequences of lockdowns, and you said that the excess deaths charts was proving that.

I looked into the yearly total deaths and the yearly covid deaths and showed that the excess deaths matched the covid deaths for each year.
Can you please acknowledge this fact, and then we can move on to this other topic.

 

[stevil]

New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market​

"An international team of virus experts said on Thursday that they had found genetic data from a market in Wuhan, China, linking the coronavirus with raccoon dogs for sale there, adding evidence to the case that the worst pandemic in a century could have been ignited by an infected animal that was being dealt through the illegal wildlife trade.​

​

The genetic data was drawn from swabs taken from in and around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market starting in January 2020, shortly after the Chinese authorities had shut down the market because of suspicions that it was linked to the outbreak of a new virus. By then, the animals had been cleared out, but researchers swabbed walls, floors, metal cages and carts often used for transporting animal cages." NYT​

I post this to reiterate one notion. We just don't know where it came from. Yes two of our seventeen agencies, one with moderate confidence one with low confidence view it came from a lab leak, while four others view it was natural. We, as in the USofA are not in a position to make absolute statements.

​

MAGA supporters seem to be all in in the narrative of "the virus came from the Wuhan lab"
Everyone else seems to be, we don't know where it came from, there isn't enough solid evidence to support the origin.

 

[rjs330]

Ummm. The lab is called the Wuhan Corona Virus Lab. They worked on the Corona virus. The virus started in Wuhan. But for some reason liberals can't seem to put two and two together. The corona virus in Wuhan didn't care me from the corona virus lab in Wuhan, it came from some random animal that came from somewhere else.. Yea I'm sure some random animal from who knows.where outside it Wuhan contracted the virus and brought it to Wuhan which then infected the whole world. How crazy of us to believe that one, the Wuhan Corona Virus Lab in Wuhan was the source of the Wuhan corona virus that started in Wuhan.

And we totally trust the Chinese to be completely honest and forthcoming about everything.

 

[DaisyDay]

New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market

Genetic samples from the market were recently uploaded to an international database and then removed after scientists asked China about them.

An international team of virus experts said on Thursday that they had found genetic data from a market in Wuhan, China, linking the coronavirus with raccoon dogs for sale there, adding evidence to the case that the worst pandemic in a century could have been ignited by an infected animal that was being dealt through the illegal wildlife trade.

The genetic data was drawn from swabs taken from in and around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market starting in January 2020, shortly after the Chinese authorities had shut down the market because of suspicions that it was linked to the outbreak of a new virus. By then, the animals had been cleared out, but researchers swabbed walls, floors, metal cages and carts often used for transporting animal cages.​

If this turns out to be the case, will Fauci still be the villain?

 

[Pommer]

Ummm. The lab is called the Wuhan Corona Virus Lab. They worked on the Corona virus. The virus started in Wuhan. But for some reason liberals can't seem to put two and two together. The corona virus in Wuhan didn't care me from the corona virus lab in Wuhan, it came from some random animal that came from somewhere else.. Yea I'm sure some random animal from who knows.where outside it Wuhan contracted the virus and brought it to Wuhan which then infected the whole world. How crazy of us to believe that one, the Wuhan Corona Virus Lab in Wuhan was the source of the Wuhan corona virus that started in Wuhan.

And we totally trust the Chinese to be completely honest and forthcoming about everything.

I don’t understand why there needs to be “someone to blame”?

If I stipulate that “it started in a Chinese Laboratory”; what’s the “next step”?
International sanctions?
What kind, how much, how long?

Or do we need to fight about every single little tidbit of information because we’re hardwired to do that!?