COVID has killed 1 out of 1000 in the US

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Some 40 million civilians died as a result of WW2

Maybe, but those wern't all UK civilians. The entire population of The UK during WW II was around 42 million.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Sorry, first, epidemiological studeies are mostly just guesswork and extremely flawed.

But not as flawed as your absurd claim that the flu vaccine does not save lives.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Lockdown = lower cases.

Open up = more cases.

So, locking down is only a temporary reprieve.

A temporary reprieve is exactly what is required to protect health services from being overwhelmed and reduce infections until vaccines and treatments are available.

originally posted by: EvilAxis

As I have said, a few countries which handled the pandemic well avoided the hurt of lockdowns altogether.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Yes, and they destroyed their economies, which will result in far more deaths and mental iless that just letting the virus run its course would have done.

On the contrary. Countries which handled the pandemic brilliantly avoided lockdowns, saved lives, prevented suffering, protected their health services and saved their economies. See Taiwan, South Korea etc.

China's economy is looking good and is projected to overtake America's five years earlier than expected. Quickly imposed stringent lockdowns in that country saved their economy, while America is now having to bail out its citizens.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Go away.

That's not a persuasive argument.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
But not as flawed as your absurd claim that the flu vaccine does not save lives.

Prove that it does.

Hint: you can't, so don't bother trying.

"So, locking down is only a temporary reprieve."

A temporary reprieve is exactly what is required to protect health services from being overwhelmed and reduce infections until vaccines and treatments are available.

F*ck the 'health services'. I'd much prefer they be temporarily 'overwhelmed' than destroy our economy which will cause far more death and destruction.

Americans never used to be afraid like we are now. I’m not but I’ve noticed just how willing people seem to be to be lead around and told what to do out of fear. Weird.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Prove that it does.

To ask for proof that a vaccine works demonstrates an ignorance of medical science. You cannot 'prove' in the mathematical sense that any medication works. Much of science and our knowledge of the world is based upon empirical evidence.

You are of course free to ignore the science, as you have done, and continue to believe that flu vaccines do not save lives.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

F*ck the 'health services'.

Will you feel that way when you or your loved ones need urgent medical attention?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I'd much prefer they be temporarily 'overwhelmed' than destroy our economy which will cause far more death and destruction.

That's a false dichotomy. The countries I mentioned saved their health services and their economies.

Classic

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jrod

Is this where I make a remark about cookg vessels of choice?

originally posted by: EvilAxis
To ask for proof that a vaccine works demonstrates an ignorance of medical science. You cannot 'prove' in the mathematical sense that any medication works.

So... what are those studies called again, that companies spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars on, to try to prove that their latest bang-up drug is safe and effective?

Much of science and our knowledge of the world is based upon empirical evidence.

Absolutely true... this is aka 'anecdotal evidence' that is ridiculed by those who worship the so-called 'gold standard' of medical science, aka 'double-blind placebo controlled studies'.

You are of course free to ignore the science, as you have done, and continue to believe that flu vaccines do not save lives.

Said the guy that apparently is clueless about how medical studies are supposed to work (even though the system governing said studies is fatally flawed, rendering many if not most of the studies generated by it worse than worthless, because they are mis-leading or even downright wrong).

originally posted by: wdkirk
Americans never used to be afraid like we are now. I’m not but I’ve noticed just how willing people seem to be to be lead around and told what to do out of fear. Weird.

Americans have several generations now living that are the product of masterful propaganda techniques. That is one possible explanation for the widespread gullibility of US citizens. Fear-mongering works very well, and we see that in play today.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

So... what are those studies called again, that companies spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars on, to try to prove that their latest bang-up drug is safe and effective?

Randomized controlled trials (RTCs) and observational studies.

There are several observational study designs, but many programs currently use the test-negative, case-control design. In the test-negative design, people who seek care for an acute respiratory illness are enrolled at ambulatory care settings (such as outpatient clinics, urgent care clinics, and emergency department) and information is collected about the patients’ influenza vaccination status. All participants are tested for influenza using a highly specific and sensitive test for influenza virus infection, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated persons (i.e., the odds of influenza vaccination) is then compared for patients with and without laboratory-confirmed influenza. The test-negative design removes selection bias due to health-care seeking behaviors. In addition to the test-negative design, there are additional observational study designs that have been used to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

cdc.gov

originally posted by: EvilAxis

Much of science and our knowledge of the world is based upon empirical evidence.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Absolutely true... this is aka 'anecdotal evidence' that is ridiculed by those who worship the so-called 'gold standard' of medical science, aka 'double-blind placebo controlled studies'.

No, empirical evidence is not the same as anecdotal evidence.

Empirical evidence is derived from observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

Anecdotal evidence is derived from informal personal testimony, often passed on by word of mouth.