You Either Keep Getting Your Booster Shots Or Admit You Were Wrong

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
and the vaxx has killed way more than the virus.

And out pops the tinfoil hat, you can never keep that baby hidden to long can you.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
and the vaxx has killed way more than the virus.

And out pops the tinfoil hat, you can never keep that baby hidden to long can you.

Facts don't care about your feelings. There is a peer reviewed study that showed the vaxx killed 278 thousand people in the US in the first year alone.

So when are you getting your next booster?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
There is a peer reviewed study that showed the vaxx killed 278 thousand people in the US in the first year alone.

Let's see it. Embarass yourself.

Hint: I already know which bullsh1t sTuDy you're talking about.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 was around 0.15% which is a global average.

At the moment is probably as low or lower than that of the flu.

There rest is just vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Unless you don't want to see what is going on around.

According to the CDC (Estimated COVID-19 Burden), there have been 921,000 deaths (worldwide) from COVID-19 and in that same period there were an estimated 146,600,000 infections, which gives an IFR of 0.628 %, which is more than four times the IFR you quoted.

Could you have cherry-picked data that understates the IFR, being as it is an estimated value, based not upon hard data, but on estimated values that are not agreed upon by everyone?

Since there were so few cases of influenza in the same time period (something several on ATS have mentioned) there is NO WAY that the IFR of flu is more than that of COVID-19. In fact, here are the flu statistics for several seasons, for your comparison: Disease Burden of Flu.

Taking from that site the median values, there were an estimated average 25 million illnesses and an average 38,000 deaths, leading to an IFR of 0.152% which is similar to your underestimate of the IFR of COVID-19.

However, note the vast variation in the estimate of infection numbers. Somewhere between 9 million and 41 million!

And this is the best and most reliable source of such numbers, and also it is denominator of the IFR equation, which further abstracts the numbers away from more hard and fast measurements.

How can anyone think that such a ratio is anything like an accurate representation of real-world deadliness of a disease (but it does reveal worst-case estimates useful for epidemiological planning)?

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: chr0naut

So what do you think about kids getting it? A demographic in which the risk of vaccine damage is greater than the risk from covid

Although rare, kids do die of COVID-19.

But more significantly, a population of kids are a strong source of hosts for the virus, and each and every host transmits the infection unless sufficiently quarantined, which is no longer being tolerated.

And the risks associated with the vaccines are not greater than the risks of the disease in kids because there is hardly any disease risk in the kids themselves, but it does kill their parents and grandparents, who can get the disease from their kids.

I don't know of any study similar to the Cleveland study, but done on children, to see if infectiousness is reduced by vaccination. The assumption is that children with a strong immune response to a pathogen will be highly resistant to it and this will affect rates of transmission.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

Are you actually comparing diseases with vaccines?!

You know I am. You do it too.

The comparison should be made between diseases and diseases or vaccines and vaccines.

Why, because you say so?

It doesn't seem to have stopped you from making those comparisons.

But all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I defend pharmeceuticals, which overall are usually the backbone of modern medicine and are provably lifesaving, at least, far more effective than denialism and doing absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Or when you are arguing about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 through vaccination and then ask on the top of this why the Alpha or Delta variant have dissapeared. Clearly you show no understanding of what herd immunity is.

Herd immunity is where a sufficient portion of the population have a strong immune reaction against a disease and this results in sufficient reduction in effective hosts, and therefore transmission, of the disease to the extent that its numbers of cases will begin reducing over time, rather than increasing over time due to epidemic spread.

Herd immunity Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

We clearly both know what the term means. Your suggestion that I don't understand what it means is simply argumentative deflection of an argument that you have lost - an Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

It reminds me of another two members, one claiming Covid cane from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus... He was also going about harm immunity.
And the other arguing the Spanish Flu lasted for a decade and ended because of vaccination. Despite the fact that it only lasted for a maximum of two years and there were no vaccines at that time.

And these mentions of the points of view of others are introducing strawman arguments which have nothing to do with points I made in my posts.

So any medicine or vaccine which has been approved cannot be challenged because it has already been approved?! What a flawed and preposterous argument.

Of course they can be challenged. They always will be. The task of the FDA in America is to challenge, test, and restrict foods and drugs that may be causing harm. It's in their name.

But those that oppose approved vaccines are still anti-vaxxers. You appear to be confused by definitions.

This way no drug or vaccine will ever be challenged and none will ever be withdrawn from the market as nobody will ever dare to touch an already approved drug or vaccine. You have to be an anti-vaxxer to challenge approved vaccines.

Clearly, you don't understand what the FDA has been doing. In nearly every country there are similar agencies, too. And academics conduct studies on approved medicines too. It is how our knowledge as a species, grows.

But random people, yelling stuff on the internet, has almost no effect.

According to you anyone who challenges or is against an already approved vaccine is by definition an anti-vaxxer. By this time it would be a significant proportion of the human population and most people here on ATS for sure. But the term anti-vaxxer is a pejorative and doesn't exist in the medical literature...

Not entirely:

The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19 - The Lancet

Dismantling the anti-vaxx industry - Nature Medicine

anti-vaxxer - Taber's Medical Dictionary

The Psychology of Anti-Vaxxers | Psychology Today

Why, Anti-vaxxer? | Psychology Today

Medical Council suspends three anti-vax doctors - New Zealand Doctor

Debunking Anti-Vaccine Myths with Scientific Facts | Health.mil

COVID-19, cults, and the anti-vax movement - The Lancet

Your herd immunity argument via vaccination has already been debunked long time ago given that the 'vaccines' are crippled and cannot prevent transmission and infection and the new variants are highly transmissible and infectious.

From my to thread: The Myth of Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 l. Links in the opening page

January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

Professor David Goldblatt
Consultant Paediatric Immunologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, University College London

Herd immunity, where a pathogen can no longer efficiently spread in a population, is achieved when a large proportion of the population becomes immune, making the spread of infection from person to person unlikely and protecting those without immunity. Despite the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, the failure of virus- and vaccine-induced immunity to prevent transmission, combined with the emergence of antigenically distinct variants, has made herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unachievable thus far

None of those previous sources have denied that herd immunity exists. What they have said is that the infectiousness of newer strains post the Delta variant, makes herd immunity difficult to impossible to achieve.

It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality, and stop the defending of the pharmaceuticals and the peddling of the official narratives that have collapsed long time ago.

I will not stop countering misinformation. The official narratives have not collapsed and as evidence, are still there online to this day.

What has happened is that you have swallowed the onslaught of misinformation, accepting it because you feel distrust in authority, and this has been fed back to you in a self-sustaining-loop by those who have little to no credibility, many of them anonymous, and with their own agendas which you are ignoring because of your cognitive bias.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You keep saying this and keep trying to blend it with the vaccine, but the mRNA instructs your cells to make part of the virus that causes COVID-19 and that is it, a very limited role and it is also very unstable in the end to actually do what you suggest.

I know we can go back and forth for 100 posts, so don't bother...lol

The biggest hurdle in developing mRNA vaccines was making the mRNA last long enough to actually trigger an immune response. These folks act like it keeps working for years, when it's hours to a few days at best

Anything involving DNA or MrNA is going to be capable of mutation. You're putting billions of these things into your body and only one of them has to land somewhere it can replicate from, or develop wrong and it can become permanent.

That's a big difference between how things work in theory and how they work in real life. In real life DNA and MRNA don't always do what they're supposed to do. (That's why cancer exists.)

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

There is a lot of funkyness in the way Covid deaths were counted.

If you take the number of people who died "from Covid" but also had heart disease, and compare that with the number of people who die annually from just plain old heart disease, the odds a person with Heart disease and Covid dies is about 2.5%, but the odds a person without Covide who has heart disease dies this year is 2%.

I see quite a lot of overlap. And "heart disease" as a "contributing factor" is around 50% of all Covid deaths.

I'm really not impressed with the disease's supposed lethality.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You keep saying this and keep trying to blend it with the vaccine, but the mRNA instructs your cells to make part of the virus that causes COVID-19 and that is it, a very limited role and it is also very unstable in the end to actually do what you suggest.

I know we can go back and forth for 100 posts, so don't bother...lol

The biggest hurdle in developing mRNA vaccines was making the mRNA last long enough to actually trigger an immune response. These folks act like it keeps working for years, when it's hours to a few days at best

Anything involving DNA or MrNA is going to be capable of mutation. You're putting billions of these things into your body and only one of them has to land somewhere it can replicate from, or develop wrong and it can become permanent.

That's a big difference between how things work in theory and how they work in real life. In real life DNA and MRNA don't always do what they're supposed to do. (That's why cancer exists.)

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

There is a lot of funkyness in the way Covid deaths were counted.

If you take the number of people who died "from Covid" but also had heart disease, and compare that with the number of people who die annually from just plain old heart disease, the odds a person with Heart disease and Covid dies is about 2.5%, but the odds a person without Covide who has heart disease dies this year is 2%.

I see quite a lot of overlap. And "heart disease" as a "contributing factor" is around 50% of all Covid deaths.

I'm really not impressed with the disease's supposed lethality.

Do you know of any fatal disease that does not have comorbidities?

As an argument, it is weak, because it ignores actual measured statistics, and replaces them with vague and unfounded suppositions.

I find it is better to assume that most of the data is correct, and that there is a small margin of error, rather than simply throwing away the data because you doubt it, and going with some ridiculous, illegal, impractical and functionally useless and motiveless conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 was around 0.15% which is a global average.

At the moment is probably as low or lower than that of the flu.

There rest is just vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Unless you don't want to see what is going on around.

According to the CDC (Estimated COVID-19 Burden), there have been 921,000 deaths (worldwide) from COVID-19 and in that same period there were an estimated 146,600,000 infections, which gives an IFR of 0.628 %, which is more than four times the IFR you quoted.

Could you have cherry-picked data that understates the IFR, being as it is an estimated value, based not upon hard data, but on estimated values that are not agreed upon by everyone?

Since there were so few cases of influenza in the same time period (something several on ATS have mentioned) there is NO WAY that the IFR of flu is more than that of COVID-19. In fact, here are the flu statistics for several seasons, for your comparison: Disease Burden of Flu.

Taking from that site the median values, there were an estimated average 25 million illnesses and an average 38,000 deaths, leading to an IFR of 0.152% which is similar to your underestimate of the IFR of COVID-19.

However, note the vast variation in the estimate of infection numbers. Somewhere between 9 million and 41 million!

And this is the best and most reliable source of such numbers, and also it is denominator of the IFR equation, which further abstracts the numbers away from more hard and fast measurements.

How can anyone think that such a ratio is anything like an accurate representation of real-world deadliness of a disease (but it does reveal worst-case estimates useful for epidemiological planning)?

No I am not the one who has cherry-picked the data.

The global average IFR has been estimated long time ago by one of the top epidemiologists in the world who is probably the most cited scientist in his field, Dr John Ioannidis.

You have actually linked the IFR the US i.e a local IFR. What describes a disease is the global average IFR as different countries will obviously give different estimates for their populations.

Here it is and I have linked it several times

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Conclusions

All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

After 3 years of exposure, and answering your statement that the IFR of Covid-19 cannot be less then that of the flu

www.ft.com...

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data.

Sane thing happening for populations around the world. Due to the exposure and the immunity we have developed as well as the reduced severity of the new variants the IFR now would be very low and as you see from the article above, probably less than the IFR of the flu.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

Are you actually comparing diseases with vaccines?!

You know I am. You do it too.

The comparison should be made between diseases and diseases or vaccines and vaccines.

Why, because you say so?

It doesn't seem to have stopped you from making those comparisons.

But all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I defend pharmeceuticals, which overall are usually the backbone of modern medicine and are provably lifesaving, at least, far more effective than denialism and doing absolutely nothing.

Because you need to compare vaccines with vaccines and diseases with diseases.

The IFR of the Spanish Flu for example was around 19%

The IFR of Covid-19 before any medical interventions and immunity build up in the population was around 0.15%

Which makes Covid-19 a mild disease in comparison and where most have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

Are you actually comparing diseases with vaccines?!

You know I am. You do it too.

The comparison should be made between diseases and diseases or vaccines and vaccines.

Why, because you say so?

It doesn't seem to have stopped you from making those comparisons.

But all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I defend pharmeceuticals, which overall are usually the backbone of modern medicine and are provably lifesaving, at least, far more effective than denialism and doing absolutely nothing.

You admit you have defended the Pharmaceuticals! At least you are honest.

So..... defending the pharmaceuticals and stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't my opinion that someone said phase 3 trials usually take from 1 to 4 years.

It also isn't just my opinion that someone said and showed that accelerated clinical phase trials exist.

Whether you remember any or not has no bearing on how long phase 3 trials take or of the existence accelerated clinical phase trials.

I was referring to this

My personal position is that anyone harmed by the jabs, because of the spike, were more than likely to be harmed by the spike from natural infection. So, vax or don't vax, these people were SOL either way.

And this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence attached to it but full of vaccine apologetics.

Mortality from the viral disease is more than a factor of 10 higher than mortality from the vaccines.

Adverse reactions databases, when compared to the numbers of doses administered, show a tiny number of relative adverse reactions. We have no better or more credible statistics defining this than the official ones. Even nurse Campbell refers to these same statistics when drawing their conclusions.

Are you actually comparing diseases with vaccines?!

You know I am. You do it too.

The comparison should be made between diseases and diseases or vaccines and vaccines.

Why, because you say so?

It doesn't seem to have stopped you from making those comparisons.

But all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I defend pharmeceuticals, which overall are usually the backbone of modern medicine and are provably lifesaving, at least, far more effective than denialism and doing absolutely nothing.

It is absurd to claim that those who challenge approved vaccines are anti-vaxxers. First of all the term is not part of the medical literature, and most importantly in the presence of evidence you can challenge anything you want, regardless of labels.

I haven't seen such flawed arguments that you are keep making.

The person who is propagating misinformation in these threads is you, answering your misinformation claims. Take a look at your arguments and start with the herd immunity claim.

a reply to: chr0naut

And no to forget your herd immunity claims via mass vaccinations which have been debunked.


January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I bet you a beer we do...lol

You're on

originally posted by: chr0naut

But more significantly, a population of kids are a strong source of hosts for the virus.... ....it does kill their parents and grandparents, who can get the disease from their kids.

If you think that makes it ok to put kids at risk, then i really don't know what to say to you! Any decent parent or grandparent would never do anything that put their children or grandchildren at risk, whatever the risk is to themselves. If they did, then they're unfit to use those titles.

originally posted by: chr0naut
And the risks associated with the vaccines are not greater than the risks of the disease

Wrong! The risk benefit evaluation for kids was changed with Omicron:


In fact for all but the most vulnerable the risk benefit has had a 'massive shift':


All of Campbell's analysis is derived from official data, which he displays and gives sources for. Yet the narrative you're still spinning is that the vax is still necessary, even for children, despite the official data contradicting this. If the vax was still necessary then why has the UK (rather quietly) discontinued vaccinations/boosters for anyone under 50?

I think we've all noticed one or two of the official narrative cheerleaders becoming less prolific; it's getting increasingly difficult to defend that position with official data and now policy contradicting it.

And recently, with that Pfizer employee's on-camera admissions covert covid engineering the drip of cover-up info is becoming wave. The next wave of covid may well be a wave of whistleblowers looking for immunity if they spill the beans on pharma manipulating the narrative and even the pathology of covid to make money (reminds me of the CIA dumping heroine in the US ghettos to paralyse and control it's population).

No doubt when blame is apportioned, if those taking the fall don't 'hang themselves' in their cells first they'll be naming a lot of politicians who facilitated these efforts for tidy sums in offshores accounts

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

I think the point was that they die out because of it.

Just saying.

Thanks for just saying.......even though I don't agree with what you said.

I am wondering why chr0naut did not reply to me when it was an answer to their post?

Chr0naut disappeared after I asked.

Why don't you go and put into a search engine:
'Do viruses mutate because of herd immunity?"

And then provide me with some proof that you and chr0naut are correct.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Do you keep getting your boosters?
If not, then why? Are you suspicious about the role of the spike protein in the countess episodes of cardiac conditions triggered post vaccinations, the strokes, deaths etc.

I think you remember what I told you about 10 times now. I weigh the risk of the virus to the risk of the vaccine and right now I see both small, so no I don't get boosters and I don't get the flu shot either. If some new variant came a long and started to kick ass then I would, but it seems the latest boosters suck against omicron, so why bother unless you got one foot in the grave and you need everything you can get, but even then, I would most likely go with monoclonal antibodies/Z-Pak as I can afford them, but not sure how many people can.

Variants don't become more pathogenic with the passage of time. The opposite happens.

It started with an infection fatality rate of 0.15% and it is now probably less than the infection fatality rate of the seasonal flu given the immunity has been built in the population over the past 3 years and the fact that Omicron variants are much less pathogenic.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

I think the point was that they die out because of it.

Just saying.

Thanks for just saying.......even though I don't agree with what you said.

I am wondering why chr0naut did not reply to me when it was an answer to their post?

Chr0naut disappeared after I asked.

Why don't you go and put into a search engine:
'Do viruses mutate because of herd immunity?"

And then provide me with some proof that you and chr0naut are correct.

I did reply to your previous post in this thread here.

I also have not left the thread.

You are equating mutational change with extinction, but they are different things.

Mutational change has already occurred many times without herd immunity being reached. To suggest that herd immunity is a cause of mutation is not a reasonable conclusion.

However, since herd immunity can lead to the eventual extinction of a pathogen strain, it can slow, and then stop mutation from occurring by reduction of the population of the pathogen in which mutation may arise.

What can occur as immunity rises is natural selection preferring strains that can evade initial immune responses in their hosts. But this natural selection rate is necessarily slower than the mutation rate which causes it, and it is also slower than the speed of new immune response to the otherwise resistant strains.

Of course, there can be new strains mutated from the immune resistant strains, which feeds the biology in a loop, extending the survival of the disease, as happens with influenza.

a reply to: chr0naut
Sorry I missed your reply.

I will stick with this question though:

Why don't you go and put into a search engine:

'Do viruses mutate because of herd immunity?"
Or
"Do new variants arise because of herd immunity?"

And then provide me with some proof that you are correct that new variants occur because of 'herd immunity'.

By the way I never mentioned 'extinction'.