Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "This Guy Can't Comprehend What A Global Pandemic Is" video.

@kevinmackfurniture Exactly right. Fit and healthy and under 60 you get over it and provide another brick in the wall of herd immunity.
2
Vaccines are not the silver bullet. In fact, once a certain point is reached, a population will become over-vaccinated because they are far from 100% effective and the immunity -such as it is - wears off very quickly. This is clearly reflected in the seemingly paradoxical fact that states with the highest vaccination levels (ie Vermont) are experiencing higher levels of infection than those with the lowest levels ( ie Wyoming.) The same phenomenon is being experienced even on a county level, and an international level too. Purely as an aside the presenter of this piece does come across as a a mouthy simpleton; a bit like Alex Jones, but without the charm and common sense.
1
@LoveOldMusic808 And yet case numbers are dropping in Wyoming and increasing in Vermont. That's the anomaly. Vaccinations clearly reduce infections and reduce symptoms but do not maintain a constant level of protection.
1
@TheOverproof151 In fact what I have said is backed by serious research, including papers deposited at the US National Library of Medicine and similar institutions in Europe. We simply have to look at the implications of the fact that vaccinations only provides partial protection and is temporary in nature and that therefore to rely upon it as away out of the pandemic is perhaps a little foolish - especially since it reduces the rate at which herd immunity through infection might be reached. I'm not an anti-vaxxer - but over-reliance could make things worse.
1
@dustigenes I do not dispute your figures, nor am I an anti vaxxer. All I am pointing out is that while a vaccination programme initially reduces spread it reaches a point where it begins to fail, and so case numbers continue to increase, whereas in areas with lower vaccination rates a point is reached at which they begin to fall. This is clearly shown by comparing the current graphs for these two states. In addition, a recent study of 68 countries and 2,947 US counties has shown no correlation between vaccination rates and rate of spread in the long term. In fact - as most dramatically illustrated by Israel - high vaccination rates are often accompanied by high infection rates. Obviously these facts are subject to considerable misinterpretation which is why the government is keen to tuck them out of sight. You have misinterpreted me, I think, but it was probably my fault for expressing myself badly. I will try to provide links to evidence in other replies but, for reasons just stated, YouTube is quite keen to see the official line is toed. ,,
1
@dustigenes I have tried to provide the direct link to the Harvard study but, as anticipated, YouTube immediately wiped it. It can however, be found in the description box to this Jimmy Dore video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD9YmiGVEkA&t=465s
1
@goemboeck As anticipated YouTube wiped direct links to the Harvard study pointing out these anomalies but it can be found in the description box below this Jimmy Dore video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD9YmiGVEkA&t=465s
1
@cecilbrisley5185 You miss the essential point that while polio and smallpox vaccines work almost 100% and last practically forever, the covid vaccines do not. They wear off after a few months and you can still become infected anyway. Around a quarter of cases in the UK occur among the fully vaccinated, for example. Booster shots are already required. So while the drug companies rub their hand with glee at the thought of never-ending income, covid just goes marching on.
1
@cecilbrisley5185 I don't think we can be talking about the same research paper. If we are, have you actually read it and what do you find to disagree with? Of course Big Pharma will find reasons to disparage anything which might lessen their profits, they always do; but that doesn't mean that the study does not make very valid points, backed with actual data. What did you Google to get to the actual paper, by the way? I can get it by Googling, but YouTube won't allow me to pass on the link and it even wipes the names of the lead authors when I try to get it across that way! What are they afraid of?
1
@cecilbrisley5185 I do wish you could stop being so patronising! I scarcely know who Jimmy Dore is and I've never been on Facebook and of course I've read the paper and, incidentally, found Dore's presentation of it quite intelligent. Why my efforts to pass in on to others without the slightly embarrassing fact of having to have it carried under the wing of a stand-up comedian, as it were, I simply cannot say. You have managed it well enough and I will try your description when further passing it along. I have read some of the critiques and found none particularly convincing. The essential conclusion: that mass, mandatory vaccinations are not the long term solution and may, in fact, be counter productive on the long run still stands in my view.
1
@cecilbrisley5185 Sorry, I'm experimenting here: Subramanian and Kumar "increases in covid 19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States". European Journal of Epidemiology.
1
@seymourskinner2533 Not really. If you Google this you may find something of interest, particularly in the concluding paragraphs. Subramanian and Kumar "increases in covid 19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States". European Journal of Epidemiology.
1
@seymourskinner2533 None whatever - other than an ability to understand English and follow processes of thought. I welcome the chance to consider rebuttals, but so far the critiques seem somewhat slanted towards protecting the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies, which is much as would be expected.
1
@seymourskinner2533 I don't know what you mean by pointing to a comment, but since providing profits for pharmaceutical companies is one of the prime driving forces for medical research and practice, it's obvious that anything which aids that objective is highlighted, while anything which may detract from it is pushed into the deepest recesses of hell. It was ever thus. And I don't think at all that this "revelatory document" does what you say. It merely points out that a strategy focussed exclusively on mass, mandatory vaccines may not provide an answer and that a broader approach is required. That makes sense to me, given the figures we are now experiencing. The document itself is quite hard to find - unsurprisingly enough. My algorithm offered it up via, of all things, The Jimmy Dore Show, if I remember correctly. I'm British and have only vaguely heard of Jimmy Dore. I guess some keywords on his presentation must have triggered this welcome response. My interest is mainly in the deceits practiced upon the general public through official propaganda.
1
@TheOverproof151 Subramanian and Kumar "increases in covid 19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States". European Journal of Epidemiology.
1
@goemboeck Subramanian and Kumar "increases in covid 19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States". European Journal of Epidemiology.
1
@seymourskinner2533 I don't understand why you are being so defensive. Now I come to think of it Jimmy Dore came up because he recently featured a piece by Dr John Campbell, who does daily coverage of covid developments and to whom I subscribe. Jimmy Dore recently featured a piece of Campbell's in which he slated the current practice in the US of providing injections without first "aspirating" the needle, ie drawing back to make sure a blood vessel has not been hit. This can lead to blood clots. Talking of clots, why do you and your sort always run away whenever your comfortable ideas about the nature of your world are called ever so slightly into question?
1
@goemboeck Well, not so much mask-wearing but obviously yes it does these things. I support vaccination too, within certain limits. The point is that, as I said in my original post, vaccination is not the silver bullet and believing that it is can lead to all sorts of trouble. It can be argued, very justifiably, that all these healthy, fit firemen, police officers etc who decline to be vaccinated are in fact doing the community an invaluable service by risking becoming infected, recovering, and thus becoming immune and so helping set up cordons of protection which will lead to eventual herd immunity.
1
@seymourskinner2533 Oh dear. Dunning Kruger! Must you really sink that low? I apologise for the "clot" but honestly must you be so predictable? Messrs Dunning and Kruger have provided stupid people with the excuse fore believing they are more intelligent than they are for far too long. Citing them is, sorry to say, a sure sign that you are a victim of the Effect! "Cognitive bias"!!?? This is another well-worn cliche with no real meaning. A suggestion: learn to criticise what a person is saying before daring to criticise what you believe their motives are for saying it. The world is run on conspiracies. Always was. Always will be. Every bite of food you take, every move you make, is the result of a conspiracy designed to make you eat that bite or take that step. There is nothing essentially wrong with this, but it is well worth keeping a sharp eye open for the motives behind the conspiracy, don't you think? In this instance is a mandatory mass vaccination programme the result of a benign conspiracy to rid the world of covid - or is it perhaps the result of a more sinister conspiracy to provide drug companies with a semi-permanent source of considerable income? Whatever the answer, it's a question worth asking, don't you think?
1
@dustigenes We are not too far apart, but the point remains that over-reliance on vaccination inevitably prolongs the pandemic and makes the herd immunity threshold more distant. There seems to be an enormous difference between the length of immunity provided by vaccines as opposed to that provided by infection. In fact there is every evidence that natural immunity is more or less total when it comes to the strain originally contracted and while a new strain may be caught, symptoms are mild. This contrasts sharply with the protection proved by vaccines, which now seem likely to require booster shots every few months and leave people uncertain whether they are protected or not, thus making it difficult for them to judge their behaviour accordingly. A balance between the two approaches is clearly needed and giving healthy people the opportunity to either take or refuse the vaccine -which is what is happening - might be the best way to achieve it. In the light of this, as well as being morally suspect, vaccine mandates could well be counter-productive.
1
@dustigenes The overall point remains: vaccinations are not the silver bullet and over-reliance could be counter productive. Incidentally on your point about hospitalisations, the number of unvaccinated in hospitals in the UK is now only 35% and the percentage of deaths even lower, since most deaths occur in the very elderly still, the majority of whom HAVE been vaccinated, alas to little avail.
1
@dustigenes I know. I think you may have jumped to the conclusion that I am an ant-vaxxer. I am not, but the conclusions of the report are very pertinent: we have to review strategies in the light of current figures and should not demonise those reluctant to be vaccinated. Personally I would go even further and suggest they may be doing a great service to the community by perhaps catching covid, recovering and so increasing the cordons of protection surrounding the vulnerable.
1
@dustigenes Those of the 23,374 who do survive will certainly serve the freedom of their countrymen and women by adding to the number of immune individuals blocking viral pathways to the vulnerable. As to who gave it to them -who can tell? Was it some selfish, unvaccinated person in the first 3 or 4 days of infection before symptoms appeared, or some conscientious vaccinated person walking about for days and weeks on end believing themselves to be doing no harm, and yet puffing out viral aerosols because they were asymptomatically infected, the vaccinations having worn off and merely reducing symptoms to an indiscernible level?
1
@goemboeck I repeat, I am not an anti-vaxxer but it has to be acknowledged that vaccinations do not provide a solution, and can actually be counter-productive in certain circumstances. To suggest that protection via vaccination is superior to protection via infection is utterly ludicrous. In the UK, for example, 65% of hospitalised cases occur in the double-vaccinated and probably none in the previously infected. All evidence point to the fact that infection provides extremely robust long-term immunity to the strain involved and while a new strain may bypass that immunity, symptoms will invariably be mild. Up until July there were just 53 such cases recorded in England. Unfortunately up-to-date figures are not available, but at that kind of level they cannot be statistically significant. Reliance on vaccination alone leads to situations where people are walking about believing themselves to be non-infectious but who are actually transmitting the disease because the vaccination has worn off and they have contracted covid in an asymptomatic form. Whether or not to protect yourself and others through vaccination or by risking catching covid and hitting it on the head with a palliative cocktail is a personal choice. There are pros and cons to either decision.
1
@dustigenes As I pointed out: vaccinated or unvaccinated you can still be infectious, but if vaccinated the chances are you will be infectious for longer - or rather you will be unknowingly infectious for longer. For this and several other reasons it should be a matter of personal choice whether to be vaccinated or not. This isn't some kind of high-school football game between the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Either way you will be protecting yourself and others to varying unquantifiable degrees and each point of view should be respected. You can be ultra cautious, as you appear to be, or follow the example of Dennis Prager who, at 73, deliberately set out to catch covid, did so, knocked it on the head with a cocktail of palliative drugs, and is now both immune and part of the defensive wall against the spread of the disease to others. On the matter of masks I am, as you may suspect, something of a heretic. Their value is largely symbolic and unless of N95 standard, fitted properly, and worn more or less permanently they are of little practical value. Now that it has been discovered that covid is largely spread through aerosols rather than through droplets or hand contact this is even more the case. Masks have certainly helped kill quite large numbers of people due to over-reliance on their magical properties. People have sat together in enclosed spaces for lengths of time believing themselves to be protected by their masks when they would have been better off opening a window and putting a fan on. People who spend time in enclosed spaces while visited by a succession of other people have been especially vulnerable to death even if comparatively fit and young. Categories include bus drivers, university lecturers and those conducting interviews, such as probation officers. Follow the science, certainly but often the $cience has motives other than ensuring safety. Money and politics come into it too.
1
In the UK around a quarter of new cases occur among the double vaccinated. Hospitalisations and deaths are not dissimilar.
1
Vaccines aren't going to stop it though - not ever. They just slow it up. Healthy young people who chose to catch covid and become immune thereby provide a far better solution.
1
@myonline1985 This is not the case. Blanket restrictions, rather than targeted ones, are all that have been tried. Vaccinations do not provide either total or long-term protection, but they do reduce symptoms enabling a herd immunity strategy to be pursued at much lower risk. The number of deaths among healthy under sixties is minimal and while the issue of long covid remains it seems no worse than as is the case with other respiratory pathogens.
1
@carolgrier7774 At this stage it appears almost certain that infection leads to long-term immunity from the strain which was caught, but it is possible to catch a different strain but that symptoms will be mild. A true picture is hard to obtain since there is, alas, a strong prejudice fostered by drug companies that immunity via infection does not work. It does, as is evidenced by statistics from England which show that only a handful (less than 100 ) have been infected twice whereas around a quarter of new cases occur in the double vaccinated.
1
@sophierobinson2738 Vaccinated people are just as capable as passing on infection. All that happens is that the pandemic is prolonged and at the end of the day the number of severe outcomes is probably greater than if the disease was stopped in its tracks.
1
@myonline1985 That isn't the decision. People can become infected, vaccinated or not. There are pros and cons on both sides. If you choose to become vaccinated that's fine. Your chances of becoming infected are reduced and your symptoms if you do become infected will probably be milder than otherwise. At the same time if you are very elderly or obese or suffer from conditions such as diabetes or hypertension you may well still die. Even regardless of these you may still suffer a severe outcome. If one good thing comes from this pandemic it ought to be finding out more about why a minority of people suffer more and longer than others after a pathogenic respiratory infection. At the moment it seems to be just a lottery. The disadvantage of this approach is that since the vaccines wear off so quickly, and at unpredictable rates, many people are walking about unaware of having covid in an asymptomatic form and thus being infectious. Also the route towards herd immunity is considerably lengthened by mass vaccination. People who choose to be unvaccinated will be most probably be aware within two or three days that they are infected and can isolate accordingly. If they have access to palliative drugs and are in reasonable health the chances are high that they will be able to shrug off the illness just as easily as a vaccinated person. A vaccinated infectious person can go for a considerable length of time without realising they are spreading the disease. This is the main reason why infections increase in highly vaccinated populations, but decrease in less vaccinated populations once a certain level of infection has been reached.
1
@myonline1985 You're not far wrong; the ideal society will be one which combines the benefits of both approaches. In the UK the number of hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated is now outstripping those among the unvaccinated -65% to 35% in the former and around 80% to 20% in the latter. Overall death and hospitalisation rates are manageable for now. What is emerging, however, is that countries and US states with lower vaccination rates are approaching the herd immunity threshold. In places like Florida and Wyoming cases are dropping quite rapidly in contrast to highly vaccinated states such as Vermont, which have suffered fewer casualties but where cases continue to rise. There probably is some ideal vaccination level which will allow a community to reach HIT with a manageable level of casualties, but what that is God only knows. It certainly won't be 100% , since that would mean the epidemic going on almost indefinitely.
1