It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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'.
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
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: Itisnowagain
By the way I never mentioned 'extinction'.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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: 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.
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
"Herd immunity causes variants to become extinct"
Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.
I think the point was that they die out because of it.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Global average IFR = 0.15%
Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...
originally posted by: McGinty
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
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.
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: 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.