Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

So even you admit that there is no basis for her "reservations." Okay.

The authors did no such thing.

Interesting data. I read the paper. In Table 2, excess mortality at a monthly level was significantly higher for 8 months at p <0.01. In the 74 months prior to Covid taking off in March 2020, this happened twice. In the 22 month after the spread of Covid really took off in March 2020, this happened 6 times. That seems like quite the shift. Is your explanation for this shift that the Amish panicked or were killed in hospitals?

 

Saying the same lie continuously doesn't make it more true. You claimed that the paper said something it didn't. I then asked you to provide the data to back this, and you won't do so because you knew you said something false. That is why I am quite comfortable pointing out that you actually lied. And are continuing to do so.

 

To clarify, I’m saying she’s not altogether right whereas you’re fundamentally wrong.

I would regard this as a tepid apology …

Following this detailed investigation, we found that the publication could have been more clear about what data was being shown in some of the included tables, and that one sentence in the abstract could potentially cause some confusion about the conclusions being presented. In view of this, we have corrected the publication. The published correction details the specific changes made to the original article in order to provide some additional clarity to readers.

I’m assuming that the Amish generally eschew hospitals. Never mind the Amish, Americans in general died in their homes, in unprecedented from causes other than Covid in 2020, this per CDC.

Indeed, it is my position that the excess mortality in 2020 can easily be explained without reference to cough and kill Grandma.

 

Florida’s 2024-2025 COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Misunderstands, Distorts Existing Science - FactCheck.org

 

It is not in any way an apology nor was it issued by the authors.

And what explains why the non-compliant Amish were dying at ahistorical levels?

 

No I said the paper said exactly what it did. It was another definition of how the idiots in public health abandoned basic medicine and science.

 

You claimed that it said who should get the vaccine. It didn't. You claimed that it said that only elderly people were at risk. It didn't. I asked you to provide the quote that you thought did that. You didnt. So you lied or are incapable of understanding English.

 

No. I claimed that the conclusion showed exactly what we knew from the beginning. That Covid was dangerous to one main group. Since you don’t want to cite it. I will do it for you…

“The research on excess death indicates COVID-19 disproportionately affects older people (Beaney et al., 2020).”

We knew this. It was the antithesis of medicine and science to push a drug onto an entire population. Any drug for that matter. Let alone a new one.

Keep living in your world of excuses to justify the disaster of Trump’ warp speed.

 

Good job providing the quote. Now, can you please point out where in that quote it says anything about the vaccine, as you claimed? Or that nobody under the age of 65 is at risk, as you claimed?

 

Does disproportionately effecting elderly equal zero risk for all other age groups? Because you seem to think so.

 

I never said the article said anything about the shot. I have been saying it was another definition of why it (the shot) should have never been authorized for most people. But you keep trying to make up crap if you wish…

 

are u for banning red meat. It too causes - GASP - inflammation. oh, the horror.

 

Don’t eat a lot of red meat. But do enjoy a steak or burger from time to time.

 

Simple question. Does increased risk for group A equal zero risk for group B?

 

Of course not.

And that means nothing. There will always be risk. The risk for the vast majority of people never came close to any threshold where a new drug should have been authorized based on basic medicine and science.

 

does not ans my Q.

 

Where would you place the threshold for authorizing a new drug based on basic medicine and science?

 

And what if the new drug lowers risk for the age groups that may not be in the highest risk groups, but still face risks? And with limited risks? Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the risks?

 

When a population is in real danger from bad outcomes and the drug has shown its benefits to harm are worth the risk.

 

What is "real danger" and who gets to define it? And what hairball when risk is low, but the drug lowers risk even more? And side effects are minimal? Do you not give the drug because you think there isn't real danger?