Coronavirus
Out of context: Reply #3977
- Started
- Last post
- 6,418 Responses
- drgs2
I'm starting to believe that Covid has a political nature, rather than a biological one. It's the same politics which are extracted from the tears of a crying black transgender baby on twitter; when human life is way overvalued for its own good. Such is the trend of the last decade.
In the great trinity of Christianity-Capitalism-Science, which normally counterbalance each other, science and humanism have overtaken every level of discourse.
But sooner or later the pendulum will swing the opposite way...
(hint: Trump 2020)
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10…
At the session, Dr Michael Ryan, the WHO’s Head of Emergencies revealed that they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with Sars-Cov-2. This is their “best estimate”, and a huge increase over the number of officially recognised cases (around 35 million).
Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, later confirmed the figure, stating it was based on the average results of all the broad seroprevalence studies done around the world.
As much as the WHO were attempting to spin this as a bad thing – Dr Ryan even said it means “the vast majority of the world remains at risk.” – it’s actually good news. And confirms, once more, that the virus is nothing like as deadly as everyone predicted.
The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.
That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal flu and the predictions of many experts from all around the world.
0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional figure” of 3.4% back in March. This figure was used in the models which were used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.
In fact, given the over-reporting of alleged Covid deaths, the IFR is likely even lower than 0.14%, and could show Covid to be much less dangerous than flu.
- Welcome to think as you wish.shapesalad
- I personally see no evidence to counter the claim it's leaked from a France+USA funded bio lab in Wuhan. Accidentally. Hushed up by the CCP at first.shapesalad
- But by mid Dec 19, it had spread enough for Taiwan to know about it and spring into action. The Chinese lockdowns, WHO hush ups and inevitableshapesalad
- spread to the west followed. Deaths mounting as dithering western leaders fumbled over trying to keep china's money flowing in, and seeing whatshapesalad
- Taiwan were doing and wondering just how bad was this... Finally experts tell their leaders, and some words thrown towards china...shapesalad
- Now lockdown 2 for most places, and no one talks of the wet market bat fake nonsense. Yes from bats, but after a gain of function gene meddling,shapesalad
- and leak from a biolab with typical chinese lack of attention to safety procedures.shapesalad
- All western countries should synchronise announcement of recognising Taiwan as an independent country.shapesalad
- And hurry up with the Oman Antimony roaster, seeing as we currently rely on China for antimony. Just one of the ways we can rely less on the CCP.shapesalad
- of course a lot has to do with the measures but there's a social acceptance of the IFR that wont happen globally until after the US elections - world leaders :\kingsteven
- I posted about this a couple weeks ago but I'm wondering how they arrived at the 10% number. Considering some parts of the world don't seem to have been greatlyyuekit
- affected such as most of East Asia and the entire continent of Africa.yuekit
- Human frailty works both ways. Some people are suggestible enough to accept publications like off-guardian, as fact.********
- One recent study (which highlights one of the pitfalls of using global data to average IFR) https://www.imperial…********
- ? easy to check
https://www.who.int/…drgs - If you read that transcript, seems like they are actually walking back the earlier statementyuekit
- "The results indicate across all of these 150 studies that, as Mike has said, the vast majority are below 10%"yuekit
- So now it's below 10%, and only in the areas that did antibody studies...which obviously were the same ones that had outbreaks in the first place.yuekit
- I think Mike fucked up, and now he's trying to pretend he didn't actually say what he said in the last press conference.yuekit
- The 0.14% is incorrect. it's 1.4%akiersky
- @yuekit Alright, touche
@akiersky https://www.google.c…drgs - People fight it off and develop immunity without developing antibodies and the serology tests will not detect the trace amounts of antibodies that form immunitykingsteven
- even in serious cases after a few months. It's fair to assume the amount of people infected>the amount with immunity>the amount immunekingsteven
- with or without antibodies>amount indicated by serology testing...kingsteven
- So you can have immunity without developing antibodies? What would actually make you immune in that case?yuekit
- https://www.bbc.com/…kingsteven
- < also mentions one I didn't know about... people that have immunity having never been exposed!!kingsteven
- I had to sit down after reading thisdrgs