a booster shot every 6 months affects attenauation of the virus

If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.



1890 pandemic

1918 pandemic

2009 pandemic

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.

[...]

Yes, it’s true that if we had done nothing to try to fight the virus and just let it burn through the population that would have caused the virus to mutate at the highest possible rate and therefore presumably attenuate at the highest rate as well.

However, that would also have killed the maximum number of people in the process. That’s why the doctor in that video you posted said that the real hope was to quickly develop a vaccine. You left that part out. If you have an effective vaccine, the population can easily survive for 10 years or more with a low death rate; your idea that that causes more deaths is bass ackwards.

I couldn’t find a date on the video, but it looks like it comes from the early days of 2020 when the UK was considering a policy of letting the infection “wash over” the population like you are advocating. But then they ran the computer models and realized that millions of people would die in a very short time if they did that.

At this point the issue is moot, in any case. About 64% of the UK population is already vaccinated.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.

1890 pandemic

1918 pandemic

2009 pandemic

Yes, it’s true that if we had done nothing to try to fight the virus and just let it burn through the population that would have caused the virus to mutate at the highest possible rate and therefore presumably attenuate at the highest rate as well.

However, that would also have killed the maximum number of people in the process. That’s why the doctor in that video you posted said that the real hope was to quickly develop a vaccine. [...]

In Chinese there is an old saying. Chang Tong Bu Ru Duan Tong. Long pain is worse than short pain. Vaccine and boosting every 6 months prolongs the pandemic to 100 years instead of 1 year. The end result is more deaths.

a reply to: 1947boomer

What do you consider to be a low death rate? Is it like paying your fair share? No real number just anything to move the goalposts for your beliefs?

In America:
The numbers for kid dying because they are unvaccinated from COVID, getting killed in a parking lot, or drowning in a pool are all about the same.

If your answer is no deaths, then you are not based in reality.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.

1890 pandemic

1918 pandemic

2009 pandemic

Yes, it’s true that if we had done nothing to try to fight the virus and just let it burn through the population that would have caused the virus to mutate at the highest possible rate and therefore presumably attenuate at the highest rate as well.

However, that would also have killed the maximum number of people in the process. T[...]

There was a simple solution to the problem of people dying. We could have just had the most vulnerable self isolate and we could have catered to them creating services and sources to be sure they were cared for, they had access to food and even rent and bills if needed, until the vaccines were finished. Then the majority could have continued on, did their part to fight and attenuate the virus and it wouldn't have crippled our economy, exploded our debt and would have helped to end this pandemic much faster.

Then when the vaccines were available, instead of focusing on mass production for every citizen we could have focused on targeted vaccine production for the most vulnerable and even quick turnaround of strain specific boosters as well.

With common sense and all the data available at the time from Spain, we could have saved not only those lives, but also our economy and money as well. But, it's not really about following the science, it's about the government enamored with the power over the citizens that they gained and scientists enamored with a new process for making vaccines. So enamored that they just have to get everyone to have it and the government has to twists everyone's arm to do it.

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.

1890 pandemic

1918 pandemic

2009 pandemic

Yes, it’s true that if we had done nothing to try to fight the virus and just let it burn through the population that would have caused the virus to mutate at the highest possible rate and therefore presumably attenuate at the highest rate as well.

However, that would also have killed the maximum number of people in the process. That’s why the doctor in that video you posted said that the real hope was to quickly develop a vaccine. You left that part out. If you have an effective vaccine, the population can easily survive for 10 years or more with a low death rate; your idea that that causes more deaths is bass ackwards.

I couldn’t find a date on the video, but it looks like it comes from the early days of 2020 when the UK was considering a policy of letting the infection “wash over” the population like you are advocating. But then they ran the computer models and realized that millions of people would die in a very short time if they did that.

At this point the issue is moot, in any case. About 64% of the UK population is already vaccinated.

There was a simple solution to the problem of people dying. We could have just had the most vulnerable self isolate and we could have catered to them creating services and sources to be sure they were cared for, they had access to food and even rent and bills if needed, until the vaccines were finished. Then the majority could have continued on, did their part to fight and attenuate the virus and it wouldn't have crippled our economy, exploded our debt and would have helped to end this pandemic much faster.

[...].

If only the vulnerable were cared for, the big pharma would not be able to earn as much profit. So I think that is not acceptable for big pharma.

originally posted by: amazingexplorer

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
If no one vaccinates, the virus attenuates over a period of 1 to 2 years. If mask and social distance are in place, the virus attenuates over a period of 10 years or more. If every person vaccinates every 6 months, it could take the virus hundreds of years to attenuate. The end result is more people dying than necessary. From the point of view of big pharma, this means long pandemic and therefore more profit. The 1890 pandemic and the 1918 pandemic and the 2009 pandemic were very short because there was no social measures to stop the spread. By contrast, there is heavy social measures to stop covid-19, so I think this is why covid-19 lasts more than 10 years before the virus can attenuate.

1890 pandemic

1918 pandemic

2009 pandemic

Yes, it’s true that if we had done nothing to try to fight the virus and just let it burn through the population that would have caused the virus to mutate at the highest possible rate and therefore presumably attenuate at the highest rate as well.

However, that would also have killed the maximum number of people in the process. That’s why the doctor in that video you posted said that the real hope was to quickly develop a vaccine. You left that part out. If you have an effective vaccine, the population can easily survive for 10 years or more with a low death rate; your idea that that causes more deaths is bass ackwards.

I couldn’t find a date on the video, but it looks like it comes from the early days of 2020 when the UK was considering a policy of letting the infection “wash over” the population like you are advocating. But then they ran the computer models and realized that millions of people would die in a very short time if they did that.

At this point the issue is moot, in any case. About 64% of the UK population is already vaccinated.

There was a simple solution to the problem of people dying. We could have just had the most vulnerable self isolate and we could have catered to them creating services and sources to be sure they were cared for, they had access to food and even rent and bills if needed, until the vaccines were finished. Then the majority could have continued on, did their part to fight and attenuate the virus and it wouldn't have crippled our economy, exploded our debt and would have helped to end this pandemic much faster.

Then when the vaccines were available, instead of focusing on mass production for every citizen we could have focused on targeted vaccine production for the most vulnerable and even quick turnaround of strain specific boosters as well.

With common sense and all the data available at the time from Spain, we could have saved not only those lives, but also our economy and money as well. But, it's not really about following the science, it's about the government enamored with the power over the citizens that they gained and scientists enamored with a new process for making vaccines. So enamored that they just have to get everyone to have it and the government has to twists everyone's arm to do it.

If only the vulnerable were cared for, the big pharma would not be able to earn as much profit. So I think that is not acceptable for big pharma.

Well of course, but F big Pharma, they still owe the US government and the people for the billions in patents that were just handed to them post world war 2. A great deal of their fortunes were built on the back of that war profiteering.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Just a observation, when covid first started to infect people, it came in a big way, then before the jabs is started to ebb, then after the jabs it came back stronger.

Soo the jabs are crap, to me it made the virus worst, more jabs will just keep creating mutations stronger.

Let see how the big pharma mobsters and CDC are planning to blame the next one on, no longer the unvax, soo it will be the new "variant".

Meanwhile those that did not took the vax and got infected will be in the safety group.

And that is my prediction.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: 1947boomer

Just a observation, when covid first started to infect people, it came in a big way, then before the jabs is started to ebb, then after the jabs it came back stronger.

[...]

That's why the unaxxed are such a big threat to big pharma. That's why big pharma forces government to impose vaccine passport to force people to vax.

a reply to: amazingexplorer

The virus can not die out, it needs to keep infecting, stronger and worst each time, for the profit making.

Pfizer said Wednesday it sold $7.8 billion in Covid-19 shots in the second quarter and raised its 2021 sales forecast for the vaccine to $33.5 billion from $26 billion, as the delta variant spreads and scientists debate whether people will need booster shots.

The company’s second-quarter financial results also beat Wall Street expectations on earnings and revenue. Here’s how Pfizer did compared with what Wall Street expected, according to average estimates compiled by Refinitiv:

Adjusted earnings per share: $1.07 per share vs. 97 cents per share expected
Revenue: $18.98 billion vs. $18.74 billion forecast
Pfizer expects an adjusted pretax profit in the high 20% range of revenue for the vaccine.

The company now expects full-year earnings in the range of $3.95 to $4.05 per share. That’s up from its prior range of $3.55 to $3.65 per share. It expects revenue in the range of $78 billion to $80 billion, up from its previous estimate of $70.5 billion to $72.5 billion.

www.cnbc.com...

People wake up, the boosters will make you more prone to infections, while those that will no take the jab will become immune naturally

Is a scam, the biggest scam in the history of human kind.

80 billion dollars in profit, think about it, wake up zombie generation.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: amazingexplorer

The virus can not die out, it needs to keep infecting, stronger and worst each time, for the profit making.

They way government imposes vaccine passport and making every person vax every 6 month means slow virus attenuation over hundreds of years. This means government keeps emergency power in place and stays authoritarian. This means big pharma earns profit with long pandemic. Win win for government and big pharma.