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

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
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'.

I mentioned the extinction of the alpha strain in the prior post that you responded to, back then.

Nor did I suggest that new variants mutate because of herd immunity. However, natural selection will favor immune resistant strains, necessitating a further shift in immune response to attain herd immunity levels.

I don't think putting something into a search engine is 'good science' (although it can support an argument).

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

Because, IMO, that wasn't the claim.

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

I never said anything about them being right or wrong. Just that we had a different interpretation of their post.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
By the way I never mentioned 'extinction'.

But that is what they were talking about, which is why I said that what you and I took away were different.

a reply to: chr0naut
I must be misunderstanding your post then?

Where is the alpha strain now? Why is the alpha strain now extinct? Could it be that there are now no more hosts who can carry and transmit the strain? Isn't that the operation of herd immunity, which you are denying is happening? What other reason would a successfully infectious viral strain go extinct for?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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?

I don't think some of you really understand what the term peer review means though you try to use the words.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

OK, since you are the expert, I still stand by my point.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I don't think they understand that peer review means multiple groups have done the same study/experiment and got the same results to the point where the scientific community accept it as fact.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

OK, since you are the expert, I still stand by my point.

Still correct though despite the attempts at sarcasm. It's pretty basic knowledge.

a reply to: daskakik
You could try searching this:

"Herd immunity causes variants to become extinct"

a reply to: chr0naut


Repeating some of the discussions for understanding what herd immunity is and how it can be achieved

From my thread on herd immunity

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

Herd immunity not possible with highly infectious and transmissible variants and with vaccines that can't prevent transmission and infection. Even if you agent infected with one variant that doesn't mean you cannot get infected with another one a f despite the fact that natural immunity is superior to vaccine induced immunity.

a reply to: chr0naut

In terms of infection fatally rate which I have posted many times but worths revisiting

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

And pretty much everywhere else.

SARS-CoV-2 was never a serious issue for most of the population of the planet and always has a very low IFR despite the vaccine ideologists and lockdown advocates.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

The other problem that they refuse to see or understand is the vast majority of those deaths come from mostly a few groups with other groups hardly even touched. The virus was devastating on the older population, but I guess that doesn't matter its .15% no matter what, where, who...

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)?

They do because it is a convenient number to throw around without understanding what it might even represent. It's this same group that thinks event 1 death per 100,000 means a drug is so bad it needs to be removed, but 600 deaths per 100,000 deaths from the virus in some countries is still .15% and that means the virus is nothing there.

If we look at a reference group of age 1 to 29 to understand the risk of death 30 to 39 is 3.5X risk, 40 to 49 is 10x risk, 50 to 65 is 25x risk, 65 to 74 is 60x risk, 75 to 84 is 140x risk and 85+ is 350x risk of dying...

What makes matter worst is that these increased risks are also on 40% less people infected in those groups. if it was 1 per 10,000 people in the reference group died then that would be 25 per 6,000 in my age group.

Then we have not even started down the path of long COVID which is a whole new story on top of all this.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

The other problem that they refuse to see or understand is the vast majority of those deaths come from mostly a few groups with other groups hardly even touched. The virus was devastating on the older population, but I guess that doesn't matter its .15% no matter what, where, who...

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)?

They do because it is a convenient number to throw around without understanding what it might even represent. It's this same group that thinks event 1 death per 100,000 means a drug is so bad it needs to be removed, but 600 deaths per 100,000 deaths from the virus in some countries is still .15% and that means the virus is nothing there.

If we look at a reference group of 1 to 29 to understand the risk of death 30 to 39 is 3.5X risk, 40 to 49 is 10x risk, 50 to 65 is 25x risk, 65 to 74 is 60x risk, 75 to 84 is 140x risk and 85+ is 350x risk of dying...

What makes matter worst is that these increased risks are also on 40% less people infected in those groups. if it was 1 per 10,000 people in the reference group died then that would be 25 per 6,000 in my age group.

Then we have not even started down the path of long COVID which is a whole new story on top of all this.

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Obviously different age groups have different risks. But a disease is characterised by one bummer the global average IFR and not what suits the argument.

I confused if I want the IFR of the 0-19 age group which seems to be extremely low. As low as 0.0003%

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It's pretty basic knowledge.

I'm sure what you know is so basic it is now taught in 3rd group...

the R0 for the initial virus was 2.5, Delta turned into R0 8, and Omicron has R0 15, but as you say they get better...lol

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
"Herd immunity causes variants to become extinct"

No need, my point wasn't about the claim being right or wrong, just that they were not talking about viruses mutating because of herd immunity.

I think you worked that out. There is nothing more to say about that.

a reply to: daskakik
You appeared to be saying ......that they die out because of herd immunity, in response to this comment:

Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

You replied:

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

That's why I said search for:

"Herd immunity causes variants to become extinct".

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago. It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

originally posted by: McGinty

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.

Do you ever put a child in a motor vehicle, and drive them somewhere? Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5-29 years. That is an enormous risk, especially compared to the risk posed by the vaccines or by COVID.

Road traffic injuries - WHO

Your appeal to emotion is unfounded, impractical and untrue.

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.

I do not disagree with the sources of Campbell's data, but I do take issue with his interpretation of that data.

When I was going to university, one of the texts that I acquired was "How to Lie with Statistics", a small volume that showed ways in which statistics could be misconstrued. Campbell is master of the art.

Yet the narrative you're still spinning is that the vax is still necessary, even for children, despite the official data contradicting this.

That is not what I have said.

If the vax was still necessary then why has the UK (rather quietly) discontinued vaccinations/boosters for anyone under 50?

The UK have not completely dropped vaccination of those under 50. They have are still vaccinating those in the demographic who are most at risk. This is after more than a year of shortages in supply of vaccines and changes in the disease profile post Omicron, and that numbers of the infected are staring to trend downwards, so they are re-prioritizing vaccine distribution:

Covid vaccines for England's under-50s delayed due to shortage - The Guardian - from more than a year ago.

Deadline for Covid booster jab approaches next week for under-50s - News.co.uk - the recent announcement.

Also, this is all over the UK news. It is hardly "quiet".

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.

In the video, that Pfizer employee was being speculative and said that they were considering the possibility. Not that they have done it. He said, "So, we're like, 'Do we want to do this?' So that's like one of the things we're considering, for like, the future, like maybe we can like, create new versions of the vaccines and things like that".

In a subsequent video the interviewee admits he was "lying to impress a date".

Also, why is the interview cut into so many edits? Project Veritas has been caught out before for editing video's to misrepresent the facts.

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

No doubt, when the truth comes out, there will be some prosecutions.

It may be that all those right-wing politically motivated liars will be taken down in due course, and the blame for all those who have died due to their obfuscation of the issues of the pandemic and the repeated sabotage of responses to the pandemic, will be properly made clear in the public arena, too.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
I don't understand why you are having a hard time with this.

You said chr0naut said that herd immunity causes mutation.

My reply was basically, "I think they meant that it causes them to die, not mutate".

I don't need to google anything because whatever it might be, it is beside my point.

chr0naut then went on to confirm that they were not talking about mutation but dying off. That is why I said it had been worked out and there was nothing more to say on the matter.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago. It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

How did we control measles? It has a R0 of like 18 which is massive? Also, not sure why you added all this in your reply to my post.