Opinions on the pandemic responses and lockdowns?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Deaths attributed to Covid are primarily (+97%) people over 60. This doesn't even factor in whether or not these people solely died from Covid, i.e. what were their co-morbidities, how was Covid infection verified, how was pathophysiology (damage) of Covid verified, etc. This is the vulnerable population. For people that end up really sick, the over 60 crowd is about 60% of these cases. For the remainder of that (40%), again I would look at health status and co-morbidities/pre-existing conditions.

One little talked about thing is the 1000% mortality rate for people with Down syndrome. Another vulnerable population mostly ignored. Also, look at asthmatics. Lower risk, pretty weird.

https://www.acpjournals.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/acp/journals/content/aim/0/aim.ahead-of-print/m20-4986/20201021/images/large/m204986ff1.jpeg

from

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4986

The fact of the matter is that most people that get and have gotten Covid are perfectly fine. You can even use the plasma from these people as a treatment for others. It has to be given in the early stages though (<3 days). It does reduce mortality, illness and other effects of Covid.

https://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(20)30489-2/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20169359v1

Right now, scientists are putting out stupid articles like this because they improperly used this therapeutic and gave it too late.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4072

I think pursuing this for high-risk and letting the rest of the population go on with their lives would have been less invasive and less costly (we're likely in the hundreds of billions if not trillions in this when you factor vaccine spending and losses from the economy). The flipside to this is actually determining the immune status of your local population. Ioannidis did this back in April and found that they had underestimated the prevalence by 50- to 85-fold. These were people that had Covid antibodies and never knew they were sick as they never bothered to get tested. I'm not sure if these numbers are applicable elsewhere, but even if the underestimation is of a lower magnitude, the fact of the matter is that you need to have tests and data of the immune status of your population.

All this spending on a vaccine is likely entirely unnecessary.

[–]president_camacho 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Who is spending on a vaccine? Drug companies? Who cares. Of course we should pursue a vaccine, nobody wants to live with this stupid virus forever if it can be avoided. Its deadly enough to pretty much destroy any nations health care system long term. Its also unpredictable enough that should u get it, unless you're under 20 you could wind up with long term organ damage. Its not the flu.

[–]VarangianRasputin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This vaccine is kind of iffy though. It's unlike any other vaccine that's ever been produced, apparently. It fucks with your body so it makes more proteins to fight the Coronavirus. It's being rushed through most testing and all that shit. I'm not an anti-vaxer, but I will admit to being suspicious about this one, not necessarily because of malicious intent, but because of unintended side-effects. For all we know this vaccine could be more deadly on a mass-scale than they're trying to tell us COVID is.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The fact of the matter is that plasma transfusion of antibodies is already an improved method. Plasma transfusion is no big deal, it's known to be safe, and done all the time. There's also an abundance of possible donors because of how few people have a negative outcome with Covid. The issue is treating people with it prophylactically (either in advance or immediately). With how much the government has spent giving vaccine money to drug companies ($9B), that money could have gone to better use helping people that are high risk for severe reactions (elderly, pre-existing conditions, etc.).

[–]president_camacho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Plasma transfusion is no big deal, it's known to be safe, and done all the time.

Id be willing to bet the potential complications and side effects from plasma transfusion are greater than they are with almost any vaccine, and if you are that bad off you need it you will possibly have long term side effects from your covid illness. I doubt its a cheap therapy either. Seems odd you are for such a drastic treatment but think vaccines are a waste of time.