RT @DellAnnaLuca: It’s not about whether this turns out true.
It’s about whether it could be.
Just like removing the gun from your forehead is the right choice, even if it turns out later to be loaded with a blank, unless you *know* that there can’t be a real bullet inside. https://t.co/aUukdNnc31
Why proponents of Big Pharma are openly lying even about such a most trivial things? They need to keep layman public in conviction/belief, that development of efficient vaccine against coronavirus is still possible.
An even worst prospect: they make a good-enough vaccine using untested RNA technology, rush it to market. A few months later the side effects begin to surface. They involve some zombies.
Joking aside: this historical moment is a test for our personal integrity and the sovereignty over our own bodies. The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment (including vaccination, psychiatric treatment, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, etc.) should be considered a basic Human Right, lest medicalization leaves a way wide open to tyranny and oppression.
Me? I'm defecting to Sweden immediately if the stupid vaccine comes to market. I refuse to get vaccinated against my will.
This is exactly what you would expect as a virus mutates. "Being" a virus is a tricky thing. You want to have the host survive long enough for you to infect more hosts. So increased contagiousness generally comes with a decrease in lethality.
The problem of counterpoints is, they too often argue experimental findings by ad-hoced sophistry. But for fully relevant i.e. balanced opposition one would also need to bring some observations proving the opposite. One could even detect pathological skepticism in this biased line of reasoning. For example many scientists argued cold fusion many times from point of various theories or less or more apparent flaws of experimental methodology - but only tiny fraction of these opponents really tried to replicate original experiments.
A lot of these articles don’t help at all and I think it’s by design. Everyone is confused and so much speculation and different information all over the place. It’s anywhere from we are opening back up to the apocalypse is coming. 🤷♂️
This is what happens to a virus, they mutate to become more contagious but less deadly...their main objective is to live on, killing the host is not ideal because it kills them as well (think of the common flu, it’s no longer as deadly as it was when it was “the Spanish flu” but most of us seem to get it every year).
the Flu didn't evolve from the Spanish flu, the Spanish flu was one variation on the influenza virus most commonly found in birds. The influenza virus has been around for over 500 years, and the Spanish flu epidemic was from 1918-1920. also using the Spanish flu as a reference defeats your own argument, because the second rise in infection from the Spanish flu [was more deadly than the first.](https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence)
I’ve started to make it a personal policy to ignore articles with “could” or “may” in headlines. They either engender unwarranted anxiety or unwarranted optimism. I will pay attention when something is confirmed or has reasonable scientific accuracy.
Totally agree and news outlets bank on being able to use this wishy washy terms. Asteroid COULD hit earth. We haven’t heard anything about it happening but yeah it could happen. Too much free space falls under the “could”/“may” blanket.
Other studies have should that people completely disregard those particular terms and take the title for face value. Dangerous stuff!
The 33-page report was posted Thursday on BioRxiv, a website that researchers use to share their work before it is peer-reviewed, an effort to speed up collaborations with scientists working on COVID-19 vaccines or treatments.
Implication is widespread existence within world populations, questioning the value of lock-downs. On this line, there is an excellent article by virologist Dr John Lee in the 2 May Spectator, unfortunately pay-walled. He addresses the question of why diseases tend to peter out, long before apparent herd immunity levels are achieved. His argument draws on evolution.
Parasites which kill their host do not prosper. SARS-COV-2 is highly variable - he suggest that many serotypes have been identified - and some of those strains will be relatively benign. A parasite prospers by evolving into a symptom-free but still infectious form, at which point herd immunity arsies and the target population does well. By concentrating the virulent form in hospitals and preventing the spread of the benign one, we slow down the emergence of this natural vaccine.