Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

The seatbelt analogy doesn't work if the seatbelt is made of razor blades.

For those who are interested to check the original full article, you can find it here:

trondheim.dagbladet.no...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It's the best study together with the studies in California and New York either you like it or not.

The study was not good, and he cited just his one...

The SG was guidance only in he recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. He also said this, which is what I said many times. "The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be
weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection."

It's a textbook example of how natural immunity is better the vaccination. It's that simple.

Read my post above this one...

Just to remind you again the study in Israel is one of the largest studies in the world together with the studies in Israel, California and New York. They simply show what we all are expecting. I mean those who know about science and read.

Natural Immunity is superior to vaccination

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study.

The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system. The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

This a way to please the vaccine industry.
When someone is infected and recovers from primary infection there no need for vaccination. Vaccines are before one gets infected not after. We don't want to start debating the basics in immunology.

Let's not as you seem to mix truths with false information.

1. Your first line is somewhat true, but just like the vaccine, natural immunity also has a shelf life as to how long its efficacy is good for. It's a little longer than the vaccine, hence you keep saying it is superior. With each new variant they reduce both vaccine and natural immunity.

2. Yes vaccines are for before to get your immune system spun up for the real thing so that if you get the real thing it is a lot less severe. Same as with natural immunity in the second time you catch COVID it will be less severe where the first time it may have kicked your ass. The vaccine is to help prevent that first time ass kicking. Other than that, I have no clue to what point you are trying to make with that line.

The study I linked above shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

Not sure why you keep repeating this when it has nothing to do with what I said, so let me pull from your article to what I been saying that you been misinterpreting, OK?

From your article... Do you agree with it?

They show, Nussenzweig says, that the immune systems of people who develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and then get vaccinated produce exceptionally broad and potent antibodies against the coronavirus.

Basically what I said 3 or 4 times now.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

You keep missing the point here and I'm starting to think you are doing it on purpose...

HOW DO YOU PROTECT AGAINST THE FIRST TIME when you get COVID to get the antibodies for future ones? Do you just roll the dice. If you are 18 and healthy, why not. If you are high risk and/or older you may not want to throw those dice.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

This a way to please the vaccine industry.
When someone is infected and recovers from primary infection there no need for vaccination. Vaccines are before one gets infected not after. We don't want to start debating the basics in immunology.

Let's not as you seem to mix truths with false information.

1. Your first line is somewhat true, but just like the vaccine, natural immunity also has a shelf life as to how long its efficacy is good for. It's a little longer than the vaccine, hence you keep saying it is superior. With each new variant they reduce both vaccine and natural immunity.

2. Yes vaccines are for before to get your immune system spun up for the real thing so that if you get the real thing it is a lot less severe. Same as with natural immunity in the second time you catch COVID it will be less severe where the first time it may have kicked your ass. The vaccine is to help prevent that first time ass kicking. Other than that, I have no clue to what point you are trying to make with that line.

The study I linked above shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

Not sure why you keep repeating this when it has nothing to do with what I said, so let me pull from your article to what I been saying that you been misinterpreting, OK?

From your article... Do you agree with it?

They show, Nussenzweig says, that the immune systems of people who develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and then get vaccinated produce exceptionally broad and potent antibodies against the coronavirus.

Basically what I said 3 or 4 times now.

For you last part. They try to please the vaccine industry. There is no tangible benefit when infection followed by vaccination. All you have to do is go to the study in California and see the graphs. The natural immunity graph overlaps with the natural immunity followed by vaccination graph.

For the other parts I am correct for a number of reasons and not just the duration of immunity. The cellular immunity is lifelong after natural infection. When you come in contact with the virus you come develop antibodies against all its antigenic sites. When you are injected with the mRNA vaccine your cells produce instructions to create the spike protein and produce antibodies against only one antigenic site.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

You keep missing the point here and I'm starting to think you are doing it on purpose...

HOW DO YOU PROTECT AGAINST THE FIRST TIME when you get COVID to get the antibodies for future ones? Do you just roll the dice. If you are 18 and healthy, why not. If you are high risk and/or older you may not want to throw those dice.

You always role the dice. The chances you get sick and die from Covid when you are young and healthy ate miniscule.

The overall infection fatality rate is 0.15% which is very low. Most people affected are the over 65 with co-morbidities.

Infection fatality rates (a few examples)

0-19 age group 0.0003%
20-29 age group 0.003%
30-39 age group 0.011%

When you are older you have higher chances. Yes for those who don't want to take their chances with the virus they take it with the jab which isn't as safe and effective as it has been advertised.

Antibodies isn't the issue. You need to have cellular immunity. Another wrong premise propagated by the media.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
For you last part. They try to please the vaccine industry.

So, the parts of your own link are 100% true because it fits your narrative, and other parts are false because they don't... OK got it. I think we are done as you are showing cracks in your argument against your own links as you refuse to even believe your own stuff now...lol geez.

For the other parts I am correct for a number of reasons and not just the duration of immunity. The cellular immunity is lifelong after natural infection. When you come in contact with the virus you come develop antibodies against all its antigenic sites. When you are injected with the mRNA vaccine your cells produce instructions to create the spike protein and produce antibodies against only one antigenic site.

So why does your own links say the natural immunity is good for one since that is what the body is fighting, BUT the vaccine is designed for 20 different ones? This is why both together creates an even better immunization.

You are starting to kill me with your arguments against your own facts... I think it is about time to just stop and move on, don't you?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The overall infection fatality rate is 0.15% which is very low. Most people affected are the over 65 with co-morbidities.

The false pretense here is it is extremely low for the young and healthy, but extremely high for the old and high risk. Just say it for once... Geez this is getting old...

When you are older you have higher chances. Yes for those who don't want to take their chances with the virus they take it with the jab which isn't as safe and effective as it has been advertised.

Antibodies isn't the issue. You need to have cellular immunity. Another wrong premise propagated by the media.

Whatever, you are just babbling the same thing over and over... we are done.

originally posted by: iasenko
For those who are interested to check the original full article, you can find it here:

The article reads kind of strange... No talk of the vaccine or COVID but does talk of an older aging population. Seems a few here google death and then just put Vaccine in front of the articles when there is nothing about it...

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The seatbelt analogy doesn't work if the seatbelt is made of razor blades.

In this case, there is a 0.002 percent chance that there is a very small, very blunt razor blade in it. And 6 to 10 times greater risk that the razor blade is in the console and will fly out and hit you if you don't wear it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
For you last part. They try to please the vaccine industry.

So, the parts of your own link are 100% true because it fits your narrative, and other parts are false because they don't... OK got it. I think we are done as you are showing cracks in your argument against your own links as you refuse to even believe your own stuff now...lol geez.

For the other parts I am correct for a number of reasons and not just the duration of immunity. The cellular immunity is lifelong after natural infection. When you come in contact with the virus you come develop antibodies against all its antigenic sites. When you are injected with the mRNA vaccine your cells produce instructions to create the spike protein and produce antibodies against only one antigenic site.

So why does your own links say the natural immunity is good for one since that is what the body is fighting, BUT the vaccine is designed for 20 different ones? This is why both together creates an even better immunization.

You are starting to kill me with your arguments against your own facts... I think it is about time to just stop and move on, don't you?

No. Not really. Read the California study and have a look at the graph presented at the end.
As I said before:

'There is no tangible benefit when infection followed by vaccination. All you have to do is go to the study in California and see the graphs. The natural immunity graph overlaps with the natural immunity followed by vaccination graph.'

You just dont understand what the article says. It's clear that natural immunity is better than vaccination.

For the other parts I am correct for a number of reasons and not just the duration of immunity. The cellular immunity is lifelong after natural infection. When you come in contact with the virus you come develop antibodies against all its antigenic sites. When you are injected with the mRNA vaccine your cells produce instructions to create the spike protein and produce antibodies against only one antigenic site.

Clearly you don't know what cellular immunity is. And clearly you don't understand the difference between natural and vaccine immunity. You have found cracks in my argument? Not really. You shave been unable to understand the processes.

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study.

The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system. The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The overall infection fatality rate is 0.15% which is very low. Most people affected are the over 65 with co-morbidities.

The false pretense here is it is extremely low for the young and healthy, but extremely high for the old and high risk. Just say it for once... Geez this is getting old...

When you are older you have higher chances. Yes for those who don't want to take their chances with the virus they take it with the jab which isn't as safe and effective as it has been advertised.

Antibodies isn't the issue. You need to have cellular immunity. Another wrong premise propagated by the media.

Whatever, you are just babbling the same thing over and over... we are done.

Is not extremely high for the old. It's much higher in comparison. Again you are making up the 'statistics' along the way from your mind without understanding or reading by how much the age groups are affected and without reading the literature. It is common as most people don't want to read any statistics or biology.

Here are the statistics for the different age groups. Remember the IFR for Covid-19 is 0.15% and for the Spanish Flu was 10%



www.medrxiv.org...


0.0003% - 0-19yrs
0.003% - 20-29yrs
0.011% - 30-39yrs
0.035% - 40-49yrs
0.129% - 50-59yrs
0.501% - 60-69yrs


In people between 60-69 for example the infection is 0.5% which means a survival rate of 99.5%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Is not extremely high for the old. It's much higher in comparison. Again you are making up the 'statistics' along the way from your mind without understanding or reading by how much the age groups are affected and without reading the literature. It is common as most people don't want to read any statistics or biology.

Death from the vaccine is well under this, and serious side effects like myocarditis is under this death rate too.

0.003% - 20-29yrs

Also stop with your condescending attitude like you have a PHD in all this and you want to "learn" the rest of us. You completely ignore any statistics I post so give me a break. You also conveniently posted just the right mix to help your argument some while leaving out the rest.

Looking at your linked document, which I'm 100% sure you didn't read as you reposted the same crap others did months ago, YOUR LINKED document once again does you no good.

FROM YOUR LINK...
For ages 0 to 59 America is actually .8% as a country and for ages 0 to 69 America was 1.8%. Italy was 1.4% and 3.7%, respectively. We need to also understand this document only addressed what they called non-elderly, and we know about 80% of the deaths are in the 65+ age groups. What this means is America was about 2%+ overall, so that there is a rather big difference then what people like you want to cherry pick hoping people do not actually look at your linked data.

One interesting data point was that Iseral was about .005% for 0 to 59 and .02% for 0 to 69 groups. You know that country that vaccinated the whole country first?

So back to the vaccine, how does all that compare to something like 0.0025% that a male in the high-risk age group may get myocarditis and 95% of those that get it is mild and easily treatable?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Is not extremely high for the old. It's much higher in comparison. Again you are making up the 'statistics' along the way from your mind without understanding or reading by how much the age groups are affected and without reading the literature. It is common as most people don't want to read any statistics or biology.

Death from the vaccine is well under this, and serious side effects like myocarditis is under this death rate too.

0.003% - 20-29yrs

Also stop with your condescending attitude like you have a PHD in all this and you want to "learn" the rest of us. You completely ignore any statistics I post so give me a break. You also conveniently posted just the right mix to help your argument some while leaving out the rest.

Looking at your linked document, which I'm 100% sure you didn't read as you reposted the same crap others did months ago, YOUR LINKED document once again does you no good.

FROM YOUR LINK...
For ages 0 to 59 America is actually .8% as a country. Italy was about 1.3%, for ages 0 to 69 America was 1.8% and Italy was 3.7%. We need to also understand this document only addressed what they called non-elderly, and we know about 80% of the deaths are in the 65+ age groups. What this means is America was about 2% overall, so that there is a rather big difference then what people like you want to cherry pick hoping people do not actually look at your linked data.

One interesting data point was that Iseral was about .005% for 0 to 59 and .02% for 0 to 69 groups. You know that country that vaccinated the whole country first?

So back to the vaccine, how does all that compare to something like 0.0025% that a male in the high-risk age group may get myocarditis and 95% of those that get it is mild and easily treatable?

Your claims have been shown to be wrong and in the last two messages you said you were done with this conversation. Keep it simple and don't engage in vaccine apologetics.

What you are writing is mostly incoherent.

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study.

The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system. The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID

Furthermore the risks for some age groups from the vaccine outweigh the benefits and given the very low risk from Covid disease for the young and healthy there is no need to get these untested and potentially hazardous products.

No need for a repeat of the same conversation. I will reply exactly the same way.

In terms of who is educated on this matter it's better if you don't open this conversation either.

a reply to: Xtrozero

State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo Issues New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

The benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group (18-39 males). In a few words the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 males because of the benefit to risk ratio. The situation is even worse when they take into account we don't know the medium and long term effects of this experimental and untested product.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Autopsy report confirms 24 year old college student died from Covid-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis

From my other thread you can find on the diseases and pandemics forum.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo Issues New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

The benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group (18-39 males). In a few words the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 males because of the benefit to risk ratio. The situation is even worse when they take into account we don't know the medium and long term effects of this experimental and untested product.

You always leave out conflicting expert views, like he's described as an outspoken skeptic. Let's get all the facts.

The state's health department released a statement on Friday stating that it carried out an analysis using a self-controlled case series technique to evaluate vaccine safety. The analysis, which was not peer-reviewed, has been criticized by vaccine experts, who said that it was flawed and the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks.

Twitter blocked the post from Ladapo, an outspoken skeptic of COVID-19 vaccines, before restoring it on Sunday morning.

The analysis clarified that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a "modestly increased risk for cardiac-related mortality" 28 days after receiving the vaccine.

The primary analysis was conducted on Floridians who were 18 years and older "who died within 25-weeks of COVID-19 vaccination" since the vaccines were first rolled out in December 2020.

And this important point:

However, the analysis excluded individuals who had a confirmed COVID-19 infection, received a booster or received their last COVID-19 vaccination after December 8, 2021. The study concluded on June 1.

The analysis said that men over 60 years old had a 10 percent increased risk of cardiac-related death within 28 days of receiving vaccines that contain mRNA. It also said that vaccines without mRNA didn't have these increased risks among any population.

www.newsweek.com...

They are still recommending the majority of the population get vax'd.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo Issues New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group. Non-mRNA vaccines were not found to have these increased risks.

The benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group (18-39 males). In a few words the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 males because of the benefit to risk ratio. The situation is even worse when they take into account we don't know the medium and long term effects of this experimental and untested product.

You always leave out conflicting expert views, like he's described as an outspoken skeptic. Let's get all the facts.

The state's health department released a statement on Friday stating that it carried out an analysis using a self-controlled case series technique to evaluate vaccine safety. The analysis, which was not peer-reviewed, has been criticized by vaccine experts, who said that it was flawed and the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks.

Twitter blocked the post from Ladapo, an outspoken skeptic of COVID-19 vaccines, before restoring it on Sunday morning.

The analysis clarified that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a "modestly increased risk for cardiac-related mortality" 28 days after receiving the vaccine.

The primary analysis was conducted on Floridians who were 18 years and older "who died within 25-weeks of COVID-19 vaccination" since the vaccines were first rolled out in December 2020.

And this important point:

However, the analysis excluded individuals who had a confirmed COVID-19 infection, received a booster or received their last COVID-19 vaccination after December 8, 2021. The study concluded on June 1.

The analysis said that men over 60 years old had a 10 percent increased risk of cardiac-related death within 28 days of receiving vaccines that contain mRNA. It also said that vaccines without mRNA didn't have these increased risks among any population.

www.newsweek.com...

They are still recommending the majority of the population get vax'd.

Benefit to risk ratio in that group doesn't favour vaccination with mRNA vaccines. My conversation doesn't evolve all age groups.

The benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group (18-39 males). In a few words the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 males because of the benefit to risk ratio. The situation is even worse when they take into account we don't know the medium and long term effects of this experimental and untested product

a reply to: Asmodeus3

They and I didn't say mRNA vaccinations should be continued, there are other choices, but vaccinations should continue.