4 ms·

Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same timeframe. And given differences in policy, and diffe

Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same timeframe. And given differences in policy, and differences in resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible difference in result (ie, it's wild mess that makes no sense and more typically returns results opposite to expectation), it largely appears this would have been the case had we not ruined everything over it.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same timeframe. Looking at Google's worldwide deaths I don't see much of a decline. Sure, it's down from a peak, but it's actually on the way back up. What data are you using for that assumption that deaths are on the decline? > And given differences in policy, and differences in resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible difference in result South Korea, with a population of 51.71 million, is currently sitting at just over 2,000 deaths. Do you believe it to be sheer chance that their deaths are so low when compared to America?
- argvargc 5y ago
  Sweden and UK saw an almost identical death curve per million despite diametrically-opposed policy decisions. Gibraltar had almost no COVID, vaccinated literally everyone and then had a massive (and ongoing) outbreak. We can go back and forth for hours with many examples proving and countering each factoid of the "narrative" - and only make my point; it's an inconclusive mess. Rigid adherence to the prevailing dogma is clearly foolish in such a situation. As for deaths, if you really want to argue about it, you need to exclude the "died within 28 days of a positive test"'s, the ridiculously-ignored co-morbidities, and the "cases" that resulted in death that were based on RT-PCR's at cycle thresholds above 35, obviously. Those coronavirus "high score table" sites don't do that nor bother to account for any of many subtleties in reporting that can and do have major impact on results. Good luck trying to figure any of it out then. But hey, don't let that stop you entertaining a false adamancy - I'm sure it feels just great. Using Ioannidis and others you can make some attempt using seroprevalence studies if you're really interested, suffice to say it's just generally much, much less overall than the SAGE-induced nonsense, you've undoubtedly succumbed to, would have you believe. Finally, as now hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's worldwide have shown, it's now one of the most treatable illnesses out there, if you bother to understand its mechanism of cell infection and how to inhibit that, instead of not doing anything to help and then putting people on a 25%-survival-rate ventilator, which thus far has been the most common response. The problem is not scientific or medical anymore, its political and social. The science and medicine has been worked out for months now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - erhk 5y ago
    He didnt die of a gunshot wound he had a comorbidity of blood loss. Ah well, he tested positive for gunshot wound but thst was 28 days ago. This is not an inconclusive mess in the peer reviewed scientific community when people use real data and studies to back their claims. The problem is that you are not sourcing your opinion from that community you are sourcing it from pointless online bickering and a confirmation biased perspective. As for sweden your comaprison to the UK is disingenuous. Compare it to norway and finland for real understanding.
    - argvargc 5y ago
      Governments the world over have made repeated, clear statements that if someone tests positive for COVID, and then dies within 28 days for any reason, the death is counted as a COVID death. That is the end of any validity in test-derived deaths data. I am sourcing my opinion exclusively from published, peer-reviewed science in well-established journals. If you are not aware of any of it, as it appears you just admitted, you are not a sufficiently qualified researcher and should refrain from comment.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    You do understand in vivo and in vitro are different terms for a reason right? That chloroquine worked in the lab but that the coronavirus can use a different pathway than the one chloroquine inhibits?
    - argvargc 5y ago
      You're completely misinformed. There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's in vivo, in live human COVID-infected patients of many differing treatments for COVID, several of which have demonstrated high efficacy in reducing hospitalisation and death as both prophylaxis and treatment. https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same timeframe. Looking at Google's worldwide deaths I don't see much of a decline. Sure, it's down from a peak, but it's actually on the way back up. What data are you using for that assumption that deaths are on the decline? > And given differences in policy, and differences in resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible difference in result South Korea, with a population of 51.71 million, is currently sitting at just over 2,000 deaths. Do you believe it to be sheer chance that their deaths are so low when compared to America?

argvargc 5y ago
Sweden and UK saw an almost identical death curve per million despite diametrically-opposed policy decisions. Gibraltar had almost no COVID, vaccinated literally everyone and then had a massive (and ongoing) outbreak. We can go back and forth for hours with many examples proving and countering each factoid of the "narrative" - and only make my point; it's an inconclusive mess. Rigid adherence to the prevailing dogma is clearly foolish in such a situation. As for deaths, if you really want to argue about it, you need to exclude the "died within 28 days of a positive test"'s, the ridiculously-ignored co-morbidities, and the "cases" that resulted in death that were based on RT-PCR's at cycle thresholds above 35, obviously. Those coronavirus "high score table" sites don't do that nor bother to account for any of many subtleties in reporting that can and do have major impact on results. Good luck trying to figure any of it out then. But hey, don't let that stop you entertaining a false adamancy - I'm sure it feels just great. Using Ioannidis and others you can make some attempt using seroprevalence studies if you're really interested, suffice to say it's just generally much, much less overall than the SAGE-induced nonsense, you've undoubtedly succumbed to, would have you believe. Finally, as now hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's worldwide have shown, it's now one of the most treatable illnesses out there, if you bother to understand its mechanism of cell infection and how to inhibit that, instead of not doing anything to help and then putting people on a 25%-survival-rate ventilator, which thus far has been the most common response. The problem is not scientific or medical anymore, its political and social. The science and medicine has been worked out for months now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- erhk 5y ago
  He didnt die of a gunshot wound he had a comorbidity of blood loss. Ah well, he tested positive for gunshot wound but thst was 28 days ago. This is not an inconclusive mess in the peer reviewed scientific community when people use real data and studies to back their claims. The problem is that you are not sourcing your opinion from that community you are sourcing it from pointless online bickering and a confirmation biased perspective. As for sweden your comaprison to the UK is disingenuous. Compare it to norway and finland for real understanding.
  - argvargc 5y ago
    Governments the world over have made repeated, clear statements that if someone tests positive for COVID, and then dies within 28 days for any reason, the death is counted as a COVID death. That is the end of any validity in test-derived deaths data. I am sourcing my opinion exclusively from published, peer-reviewed science in well-established journals. If you are not aware of any of it, as it appears you just admitted, you are not a sufficiently qualified researcher and should refrain from comment.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  You do understand in vivo and in vitro are different terms for a reason right? That chloroquine worked in the lab but that the coronavirus can use a different pathway than the one chloroquine inhibits?
  - argvargc 5y ago
    You're completely misinformed. There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's in vivo, in live human COVID-infected patients of many differing treatments for COVID, several of which have demonstrated high efficacy in reducing hospitalisation and death as both prophylaxis and treatment. https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/