General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Dale Crocker
A Different Bias
comments

Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

As opposed to covid paranoia?
6
Karl Zaraiva When an excess of caution and awareness leads to excessive behaviour, that is paranoia. The measures we are taking to beat this pandemic are creating more damage and causing more death and misery than the disease itself.
5
@atomiccritter6492 This is a strict medical definition - but one closer to the present situation than you seem to imagine. The idea that children should be inoculated when they are capable of dealing with covid entirely efficiently under their own steam is the result of a delusion. It is delusional too to suggests that lockdowns prevent the spread of the virus when all they do is create environments where variants can prosper. Paranoia is fear feeding upon itself. Which is what we have here.
3
@paulsaunders6536 The facts are that lockdowns are not considered in many scientific circles to have any appreciable affect on the long-term spread of the disease. There have been any number of studies to this effect. The disease, like all pathogenic infections, follows a predictable pattern of gradual rise followed by a steep decline. It is easy enough to superimpose a lockdown date on this descending curve and claim that this created the decline, but it is not so. This failure is of course apart from the immense and disproportionate damage caused by lockdowns. After all a cursory examination of the sky shows that the sun revolves around the Earth.
3
@Ghengiskhansmum I don't think you understand what the term "herd immunity" actually means. It is not some evil Tory plot to kill everyone off. It is a natural way of resisting the spread of disease which needs as much help from human ingenuity as it can get. I entirely agree with you about test and trace by the way.
3
Absurd. Indications are that around 5% of victims will experience long-term symptoms; some severely, others not very much at all. Once again, as with deaths and hospitalisations, the older people are the worse this will be. This is not the sort of situation which cripples economies
3
Why inject children when their immune systems can deal with covid very adequately on their own?
2
@caterthun4853 The bubble is yours. Such losses of friends and acquaintances are in no way exceptional without covid - especially if you are of a certain age. As to your young neighbour he is indeed unfortunate - but he is a rarity. As with hospitalisations and deaths the older you are the more chance there is that you will suffer worse and longer. Shit happens. He could have broken his leg playing football and suffered similar inconvenience.
2
@atomiccritter6492 What's sensible about injecting children with a drug they don't need when it's long term effects are not known?
2
@TheMixCurator As I said, shit happens and in varying degrees of unpleasantness. Bad things happened before covid and they will happen after it has taken its place on the roll-call of the many affliction human flesh is heir to. There is nothing repugnant or uncaring about this; it is merely a sober assessment of the facts
2
@Ghengiskhansmum You have misunderstood both me and the term "herd immunity." It occurs in nature but often at huge cost. Helping it along with medical assistance doesn't alter the fact that herd immunity is what we are trying to achieve.
2
@lazytitan9987 I give up too. We'll just have to agree to differ and wait until all this over and the books are written to find out who was right - if there is ever a consensus, that is. Or indeed, if it's ever over. Your maths are sound but I believe it is necessary for a random factor to be introduced to actually give variant b the opportunity to find sufficient hosts to transmit to. But I could be wrong. It's been kinda fun anyway Thanks.
2
Or even masks for that matter.
2
@colinnicholas5482 Just a bit dim and easily frightened, I think.
2
Why inject children when they only get covid mildly?
2
@alanbutterfield8057 Why not? Children's immune systems deal with covid very efficiently, catching it generally in the nose and throat before it reaches the lungs where the damage occurs. Why give them a drug the long-term effects of which cannot be known?
2
It is now an established fact that children only suffer very mildly if they get covid and it is becoming increasingly clear that they infect others only rarely. This is because the immune systems in their noses and throats are robust enough to deal with infection before it reaches the lungs, where the real damage occurs. This also means that viral output is low and, more to the point, droplets containing virus are not expelled. They actually HAVE herd immunity in a very real sense, and are not agents of infection. The way our children have been treated is utterly shameful. Much of the scientific advice put to the government by the "experts" on the payroll whom you so admire is of highly disputable value. The WHO condemns lockdowns, for example, and the increase in world poverty and consequent deaths of children can be laid firmly at the door of governments which persist with this strategy.
1
@TheMixCurator You do me several injustices. Enjoying the companionship of your neighbours has nothing to do with the fact that your neighbours and you - and I -will die someday and certainly suffer a number of unpleasant experiences on the way. I know this but I do not dwell upon it. Nor do I imagine that any amount of compassion and companionship is going to do anything other than keep these sad truths in the background of my consciousness. To deny death and suffering is as foolish as to continually consider them. When trouble takes a new form, as it has the past several months, it is more important than ever to remain objective and clear-sighted and to address problems with the light of reason and not to allow ones behaviour to be clouded by sentiment.
1
@atomiccritter6492 They are actually not ALL additional deaths. I'm going from memory here but I think the UN projected UK death rate for 2020 was something like 9.4 per 1,000 of population and it turned out to be 10.2. So that's something less than one in a thousand extra deaths, which while far from being good news has to be put in a context whereby the vast majority of those deaths were in elderly and very elderly people who would have died over the next very few years anyway. Another factor is that far from all of these extra deaths were due to covid. Death rates from other causes have shot up in many countries and and US states where lockdowns have been rigorously enforced according to an ongoing study and it is hard to imagine how it could have been otherwise.
1
@Ghengiskhansmum Evidence?
1
@lat1419 One good thing that could result from this present situation is that this significant public health problem will get the attention it deserves.
1
@lazytitan9987 I'm not quite sure what you're referring to but I don't go to pubs. I rely on statistical evidence wherever possible.
1
@lazytitan9987 Just this one. MRA and other vaccinations aimed at childhood diseases are to be welcomed. But covid is NOT a childhood disease. It largely leaves them alone, so why vaccinate against it? Personally I think that on balance it is foolish to vaccinate anyone much under the age of 40 unless the have a pre-existing life-threatening condition. We mustn't forget that this type of inoculation is based on very new technology and the possibilities of long term disadvantages cannot be discounted. Any healthy person below 40- or even 50 or 60 if you want to push it -is very unlikely to suffer badly from covid. This is known. What might happen to them as they grow older after this treatment is is NOT known.
1
@atomiccritter6492 I have given you the facts on the excess deaths for 2020. It is up to you how you interpret them but even you must realise how improbable it would be for no-one between the ages of 70 and 100 to have died last year without the advent of covid. The study I referred to is being undertaken by the highly-respected Institute of Economic Research, based in Massachusetts . It ha several Nobel prize-winners on its books and is no gimcrack organisation by any means, The working paper number is 28930. I will try to send a direct link on another post.
1
@atomiccritter6492 https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf
1
@lazytitan9987 You are misinformed on a number of counts. Covid is a disease which only produces dire effects when it affects the respiratory system. It will never become eradicated via a process of vaccination. Children will only be able to pass it on in rare circumstances - if at all. Comparisons with such diseases as measles are meaningless. Current studies show that long-term affects are also governed by age. They occur hardly at all in teenagers, affect around 1.2% of patients in their 20s and up to 4.8% of those in middle age. The percentages you cite have no foundation other than possibly being an average found in patients in ICU's, many of whom have been elderly and very elderly. As with death and severe illness, so-called long covid is age related with young people suffering from it only rarely. Your paragraph 3 is nonsensical. There is no evidence that young adults and school children have been major factors in infection surges and in any case pre-pubescent children would be excluded from the equation. I simply don't understand the last sentence. The vast majority of the current wave of cases have occurred among unvaccinated and therefore probably younger people and their symptoms are consequently generally not life-threatening. People who have been vaccinated and have still caught the disease are themselves generally experiencing only mild symptoms with relatively low viral loads and are therefore unlikely to infect others to any great degree. New variants- or their coming into pre-eminence - have nothing to do with the number of new cases. They already exist but only take hold when circumstances are altered to allow whatever tiny differences they possess to find an advantage. This is called evolution and has been known about for some time.
1
@lazytitan9987 Get Googling! Try ZOE or even the ONS. If you have any specific query on any of my assertions I would be happy to supply you with whatever sources led me to them.
1
@lat1419 Thank for your concern. I am a pensioner myself and perhaps too well fed. The government is really quite generous as far as I can tell.
1
@atomiccritter6492 I never claimed it to be any other than an ongoing study, nor that excess deaths in Britain are dealt with specifically. The 10.2 in a thousand death rate is a matter of ONS record and the 9.4 ish UN prediction can be found on a number of other sites. Just Google it. It's going to be a while before excess deaths from cancer, heart disease etc etc in this country can be reliably assessed. Even then the true nature of the disaster will be hidden beneath the fact that many people who have died "with" covid have done so because they have been weakened due to inadequate treatment for pre-existing conditions. How could it be otherwise?
1
@atomiccritter6492 I have never claimed there are no excess deaths. Of course there are: due both to covid and to reduction and delays in treatments for other life-threatening conditions due to lockdown and other restrictions. If someone dies with covid at the age of 90 his life expectancy is obviously going to be low, isn't it? One could certainly expect him to die within ten years - and probably far less. What do you find hard to understand in this?
1
@lazytitan9987 I have invited you to submit any particular query you may have and I will then hopefully be able to advance your education by directing you to sources.
1
@lazytitan9987 The virus needs to invade the respiratory system before it can spread in sufficient numbers to affect other organs. Children don't pass it on (or very, very rarely) because the highly efficient immune responses in their noses and throats prevents it from reaching their lungs. The virus is spread largely through aerosols and droplets expelled from the lungs of those affected. If it isn't present in children's lungs it cannot be passed on in this way. No child not suffering from a pre-existing severe medical condition has died with covid in this country. Cases of long-term damage are extremely rare and the same caveat applies. The astronomically vast number of viruses already in existence make it statistically inevitable that all viable variants already exist. Reproduction is not at the point where changes occur. Reproduction occurs at the point where an existing minor alteration in RNA is confronted by a situation where such an alteration brings an advantage not available to other forms. Virulence does not equate with success either. Your view of evolution went out with Lamarck.
1
@lazytitan9987 A mixed bag of bits and pieces for you to browse -mostly questing the effectiveness of lockdowns in various degrees, but the evidence put to Florida goes a great deal further. The WHO has published a number of papers on the effects of lockdowns in vastly increasing world poverty and death thereby as well as increases in mortality for TB, malaria and other conditions. Must I dig those out for you or are you capable of finding them for yourself? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.09.20210146v3.full-text https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qydRF1Rlr68 Florida on lockdowns https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abst ract_id=3782395 Lockdowns SSRN https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)302 08-X/fulltext Lancet on lockdowns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qydRF1Rlr68 Florida lockdowns https://archive.vn/QGyET Stanford U on lockdowns Jan 12 Newsweek article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_8FBd2IMM
1
@lazytitan9987 This is an ongoing research paper from the US National Bureau of Economic Research which indicates, unsurprisingly, that death rates from other causes increase in countries and states where lockdowns are enforced. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf (Apologies if my last bundle was a bit of a mess. YouTube stasi gets funny sometimes and I have to take steps to evade it.)
1
@lazytitan9987 I'm afraid the CDC has lost all credibility as far as I am concerned. Much like SAGE it is a political organisation which changes its views according to mysterious diktat. And as for The Conversation....well Of course any virus which exists has gone through a process of reproduction, otherwise it wouldn't exist, would it? The point is a variant with increased transmissibility comes to no purpose unless a situation exists whereby some advantage will derive from the minor alteration in its RNA which increases its transmissibility. Take the likely life history of the Delta variant for example. In India only wealthy people living in detached suburban homes have any hope of enduring or sustaining lockdown. They evade the earlier less efficient less transmissible variant but along comes Delta, perhaps some of just a few million floating about, and it's quick enough off the mark to start up a series of infections within this restricted environment. It spreads and is inevitably transferred to the general population, some of whom visit their relatives in the UK and then some of their neighbours travel Europe on business or holiday. Viruses don't spontaneously generate and although it is possible that some wealthy Indian caught earlier covid and it mutated within him it is just as likely that Delta variants existed in the vast invisible clouds of aerosols and virions which surround us. In either case it's only going to spread initially in an environment from which its rivals are excluded, isn't it? Being able to jump six feet is of no advantage when the fence is only five feet high. Delta didn't ought to be more virulent than its predecessor (although it might be) it just has to be more readily transmissible. In fact in time covid variants ought to become less deadly since if the hosts die they can't can't spread that variant. Indeed, in time covid 19 ought to become just one of the components of that little platoon of irritating pathogens we call the common cold.
1
@lazytitan9987 It really is a question of weighing pros and cons, isn't it? To make matters worse data and its interpretation is skewed by politics. You just did that yourself! Death rates are no worse in the countries you describe. Go to the deaths per 10,000 league tables available on in Internet and I defy you to find any correlation with covid scepticism. You might find exactly the reverse when you compare Peru with Brazil for example, or California with Florida. I do hope you can access the submissions to Florida's health committee by the way. OK it's only a YouTube video but the experts put their views well and were heeded. "Lockdowns are the greatest public health disaster in living memory," it was said. I think so too.
1
@lazytitan9987 SAGE's continued reliance on the insane computer projections of Neil Ferguson are enough, apart from the fact they have an equally insane communist among their number. Both these people have agendas other than defeating the virus. As for the CDC, what is it? How can you define a body which contradicts itself so readily and hangs around the heels of the politicians like a puppy with its tongue hanging out? The claim that facemasks were more effective than vaccines is enough to condemn it and its data collection on covid deaths is very questionable. The stories about motorcycle deaths being recorded as covid related are actually true. Don't get me started. You still don't get basic evolutionary theory, do you? Old Darwin went through a load of trouble and grief to sort this out and you really should take notice. As I indicated in my high jump analogy an advantage is only an advantage when territory makes it so. The superior transmissibility of a variant is of no matter when there are plenty of hosts around to transmit to. It's only when the availability of hosts is reduced that the tiny little extra tweak of spike protein makes a difference. Darwin did it with finches. Some finches have stronger beaks than others but it's only when the nutshells get hard that the bird with the stronger beak survives and reproduces. Same with coronaviruses, except it's protein spikes.
1
@atomiccritter6492 Lost the argument? What world of delusion are you living in?
1
@lazytitan9987 Peru has been under lockdown enforced by military intervention for the duration of the pandemic. It also has a crappy healthcare system. Which three countries are you talking about anyway? Hungary and Bosnia have both has lockdowns and social distancing so what are you getting at? As I've said before restrictions seem to make very little difference to outcomes and it is actually easier to make a case for restrictions causing more deaths, (Strict mask mandate in Hungary, for example) Around 60 million people die every year and covid as a cause of death is way down on the list. In fact the world death rate as of mid 2020 was the same as in the previous two years - and considerably lower than in previous years. I stick firmly to my case. Those who have died have been almost invariable elderly or frail in some other way. It is sad that they were taken but they were first in the queue. Children and young people have been spared. How many lives have been saved by lockdowns will be forever an unknown quantity but indications are it is practically none at all. On the other hand the economic reverberations of lockdowns and their dire effect on public healthcare and general quality of life will be with us for decades.
1
@lazytitan9987 There is no consensus, simply a wide selection of views some influenced by political considerations and others not. Yes, I naturally greet with considerable relief the fact that highly qualified specialists support my instinctive assessments. These include tenured professors and WHO advisors with lengthy and distinguished careers in epidemiology and public healthcare and I am reassured to note that they do not depend on political placement for their livelihoods. Your 10% illustration is utterly ridiculous. A virus may be 10% more transmissible than its competitors but if it exists in very very small numbers it will stand no chance of beating the competition. Its extra transmissibility is irrelevant because extra transmissibility is not needed. Only when competition is affected by the introduction of restrictions in the available number of hosts will its improved transmissibility prove its worth - and it will then vastly increase in number and reach a point where, because of that increased number, its 10% advantage will lead to it replacing the competition. Which is what has happened. Evolution occurs as a result of a change in balance between environment and individual characteristics. Nature changes the individual characteristics but in the present instance it is we who alter the environment to allow the characteristics to bring advantage to their possessor. Isolation? Finches isolated on an island where the nutshells are hard end up with stronger beaks. Viruses isolated in the suburbs of Delhi where hosts are hard to find end up with more efficient protein spikes.
1
@lazytitan9987 I strongly deny that I have ever ascribed intention to evolutionary change! Quite the contrary I have made it clear that the success of a new variant depends upon a relationship between environment and acquired characteristics. New variants occur in an arbitrary way and there are very many of them, the vast majority of which bring no benefit. Finch beaks develop in response to the environment as as do viruses. The only difference is that viral evolution is several million times quicker and in this instance man has altered the environment. Less infections may mean less mutations but we have long ago passed the point where this matters. The number of viruses that have been created is so vast that the Delta variant must have emerged several time over. The tiny differences it possesses do not enable it to beat the competition as long as the competition outnumbers it so greatly and is itself allowed to continue its natural function. I think it is you who are ascribing motive to this arbitrary process. The Delta variant has not become dominant because it is smarter and more determined than other viruses, but because environments have been created which give it the opportunity to do so. ( I was particularly intrigued by your assertion that "similarly the seeds which are too hard for the existing beak strength of the finch population don’t get eaten and are able to reproduce more." How does that work out? Was it a mistake in your English or do you actually not realise that seeds of the type eaten by birds actually NEED to be eaten in order for the plant to reproduce?)
1
@lazytitan9987 It is your understanding which is flawed. As I have explained several times we would not have seen Delta in earlier incarnations since its advantages would not have been sufficient for it to overcome competition when the competition existed in such numbers and the environment offered adequate opportunity for both to survive. Six foot jumpers, five foot jumpers and five feet fences, remember? It's a good job you're not a squirrel. Of course not all seeds need to be eaten in order to reproduce. But those eaten by finches obviously do. They develop hard shells to prevent them being eaten by insects or by any other weak lifeforms which are incapable of transferring their genetic material to distant new territory. Like viruses they need agency to be able to reproduce. Big strong finches with strong beaks do the job. It is factors such as this which provide the recipe for survival. The virus adapts to changing circumstance in the same way as does the seed and the finch. The procession of altered forms is constant but it is only when circumstances alter to allow a new form to gain advantage can it do so.
1
@lazytitan9987 Chickened out, huh? Evolution at work.
1
@lazytitan9987 I'm fairly tired of explaining things to you. The difference between us I think is that I understand your explanations but disagree with them. You can't seem quite to grasp mine. I will speak unto you in parables: In the vast plains of Africa there are vast herds of impala. They are preyed upon by both lions and cheetahs. Both catch and eat the impalas and so survive and breed. One day the god of the impalas removes nine tenths of the impalas and the rest exist in small groups scattered around the vast plain. All at once the cheetahs are at an advantage as their speed allows them to run down the remaining impalas while the poor lions stagger around in the undergrowth, puffing and panting. It is an inadequate analogy, as all analogies must be, but you of course must realise that the "unexplained" reduction in host numbers in this case is the action of the god of the impalas. The "unexplained" reduction in host numbers in our present instance is the imposition of lockdown restrictions. According to your way of thinking as soon as cheetahs appeared on the scene their extra efficiency would have allowed them to outcompete the lions into extinction. Not so. Plenty to go around. I repeat: A small advantage is no advantage at all unless circumstances allow it to be so. Being more transmissible is only an advantage when the number of hosts capable of being transmitted to is reduced to a level whereby viruses with less transmissible qualities cannot readily find hosts. As is the objective of lockdowns.
1
@lazytitan9987 You are extending my parable beyond its parameters. The principle is all that needs to be understood. Zoological quibbles are to no purpose. Delta began in India where you say there are no effective lockdowns. This is not entirely true. Lockdowns were imposed from the outset but were of course somewhat impractical in such an overcrowded country. Most Indian cities and towns are, however, surrounded by wealthy suburban areas which lend themselves ideally to lockdown and isolation. Large villas, widely separated and surrounded by high fences and walls, give wealthy families the opportunity to divorce themselves almost entirely from the world outside. It is my contention that in environments such as this that the Delta variant emerged as dominant. A peculiarity of SARS-Cov 2 is that unlike previous covids it appears to be capable of swift mutation in the manner of influenza viruses. Scientific opinion on why this should be is sharply divided. One answer to the question might well be that through our interventions we have created circumstances encouraging and vastly speeding up the mechanics of evolution. This has happened in individual cases where patients subjected to a variety of experimental treatments have produced a new variant in response. The virus' immense rate of reproduction allows it to come up with a solution simply by throwing billions of answers at the problem until one fits. Back to Bihar Crescent, New Delhi where Mr Gupta and his family are heeding government advice and self-isolating. Their fridges are full but they still have deliveries which are left at the gate for collection. The amount of virions and aerosols in the compound and in the house is much reduced, but it is still there and among the billions which arrive there are a few million delta variants (as well as a few million other variants which need not concern us here). So which variant is most likely to infect Mt Gupta's family? Obviously the one most fitted to do so - the more transmissible Delta. Back in the city slums B.1234 or whatever its name is still infecting by the thousand and the Deltas do no better or worse since their depredations are concealed among the infections which B 1234 can still readily achieve as there are plenty of hosts to infect who then infect one other very rapidly due to close proximity. The rest is history, as they say. Mr Gupta's servants come to town along with the servants of all his neighbours and all infected with the Delta variant. At last Delta is available in sufficient numbers to get among the slum dwellers and utilise its increased transmissibility to infect enough of them before B 1234 corners the market. There's a new kid on the block and all he needed was a start in life.
1
@roywiseman Lefties love fear.
1
@lazytitan9987 Hullo again! There is a school of thought which suggests that left-wing folk tend to be more fearful and take a gloomier view of the world than those on the right - something which might be indicated by our recent enjoyable exchange of views. They are more risk-averse and less likely to question authority and more gullible and easily led than us fascist bastards. But do those of the right love killing poor people? Does anyone? As I've already said millions of poor people are going to be killed over the next few years as a consequence of lockdowns - strategies supported with hysterical fervour by all you regulation-loving, virtue-signalling paranoia junkies.
1
@lazytitan9987 The right has many faults and is the duty of the left to correct them, if possible. But as you have just shown, you are not very good at it and are getting worse and worse. I hold no brief for this government and a great many Conservatives feel the same. But they, unlike Labour, are very good at keeping ranks and showing the appearance of loyalty. I missed the two byelection that were lost, where were they? As for Freedom Day it has been too long coming. Boris and his bunch of tossers have been successfully pressured to give a date and stick to it. The only politics involved is that Boris needs to heed the Right or his days are numbered. Hancock was just a warning shot. No-one gives a toss about Labour any more, other than to have idiots to tease in the Chamber. Is July 19 a risk? Not much. Most of those getting Delta are younger people who have not been vaccinated, but their youth should protect them. The rest (around 5,000 a day, but dropping) also appear to be suffering only mild symptoms, thanks to the vaccine or even to Delta being less virulent. So bit of a risk (RW) deregulatory (RW) unsentimental (RW)economically pro-active (RW) if it fucks up Johnson goes (RW).
1
@lazytitan9987 You seem to have a problem with defining words. Loyalty has nothing to do with blindly following authority. Loyalty is a two-way street, authoritarianism is not. Perhaps an inability to make this important distinction is another feature of the left-wing mindset. "Cognitive dissonance" is such a lovely buzzphrase, but it should only make you feel intelligent when you use it properly. In this case you have not. I feel no discomfort about contradicting myself, because I haven't done so. Next misunderstood psychological usage on the dumb lefties' "look at me, I've clever" handbook is usually the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Wanna try that one?
1
@lazytitan9987 Hold on there! You do both of us a disservice. You may even give yourself a little pat on the back, if so inclined. Your spirited rebuttal of the "variants thrive under lockdown" theory has actually made me consider the matter further. I still think it highly probable but my conviction level has dropped several points. (Actually my handle does have certain ND qualities - but only surname first and spoken in an Australian accent.)
1
How can herd immunity be "discredited" when it is the way organisms have dealt with epidemics since the dawn of time?
1
@erwinmulder1338 True enough, but different infections mean different results. Covid could have been halted by a process of isolating the over 60's while encouraging healthy under 60's to mix and build up group immunity. After all, covid generally only kills those beyond reproductive age and can therefore have no effect on long-term population.
1
@megannehover Herd immunity is, of course, helped along greatly by modern medicine but the principle remains the same - cutting down pathways to infection by reducing the number of potential carriers so that the number of victims is manageable. I don't think anyone is suggesting we abandon ourselves to natural herd immunity- but achieving it with the help of artificial means is what we are after; so how is that in any way discreditable?
1
@Yeknodathon I don't think my views have changed to any great degree. As sad and unpleasant as these infections, hospitalisations and deaths may be they are far outweighed by the tragic effects resulting from attempts to reduce them. World poverty resulting from economic stagnation created via lockdowns etc is already resulting in death and deprivation on an almost unimaginable scale. TB, just as one example, was on the decrease. The WHO estimates that at least half a million preventable deaths have occurred from it as a result of resources being channelled into dealing with the pandemic. The people were all young. The people covid kills are nearly all very old, and have had their turn. Had those "discredited and unscientific" strategies been implemented at the start of the pandemic there is every chance that many of these dire consequences could have been avoided.
1
@Yeknodathon Which should and could have been achieved quite rapidly - and then the measures should be abandoned, as the WHO has consistently asserted. I don't decide on human life - nature does, but it strikes me that deciding to sacrifice the lives and livelihoods of millions worldwide in order to provide the very old in privileged countries with a few more months or years of existence is a pretty disgusting way to behave.
1
@Yeknodathon Sweden has come close of course, as have several African and other third world countries where lockdowns etc are impossible to maintain. Some US states have been relatively sensible too. And have these locations been visited by dreadful consequences? Of course not. They are doing no better or worse than anywhere else- although perhaps better in many cases - and studies are beginning to show that death rates from causes other than covid have spiralled in places where restrictions have been strictly enforced. We can only hope that we will be able to learn from the gross errors of politicians and their jobsworth scientific advisors when it comes to dealing with the next pandemic when it occurs.
1
@Yeknodathon Nature needs as much help as we can give it, since it is probably entirely indifferent to our general well-being. All I am suggesting is that many of our attempts to help things along have actually made matters a great deal worse in this instance.
1
Covid in anything like a threatening form is not happening in young children either. Bubbles and isolation are panic measures with no healthcare foundation whatsoever.
1
On a more optimistic note, is it not true that the vast majority of current cases are among unvaccinated people, therefore probably mostly in younger age-groups and therefore probably less liable to severe symptoms and death? Is it also not true that those vaccinated people who have succumbed are generally experiencing less severe symptoms and that they too are less likely to suffer severe outcomes?
1
@BigHenFor What's normal? Unless this disease becomes anything more than just another seasonal pain in the arse we can put it behind us - although hopefully learning from the many mistakes which have been made.
1
But children do not suffer greatly from covid nor do they pass it on to adults to any great degree. This is because the antibodies in their noses and throats seem to deal with it before it affects their lungs, which is where the real trouble starts. It also means that they are not expelling droplets and aerosols to infect others. Covid in children really isn't much of a problem at all. If there is a good example of the hysterical and damaging over-reaction to the disease it is the way children have been treated.
1
The science says children don't need inoculation because their immune systems deal with covid very effectively on their own,
1
@Skylark_Jones This is a controversial opinion to say the least. What is the point of vaccinating children when they experience only mild symptoms and recover quickly? Van-Tamm knows no more than anyone else what T-Cell long-term immunity occurs in children who recover from covid but the chances are high that it will be more effective than any protection offered by vaccines. Neither does Van Tamm nor anyone else know what the long-term effects of these vaccines will be. Using them in developing bodies when there is no immediate call for them strikes me as utter folly.
1