Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

[nicky wire's legs]

Ventilators are deadly? Your book really sounds worse and worse. I'm sure it will not win a #NobelPrize.

Yes, someone on a ventilator is usually at risk of dying and the ventilator is helping them breathe and keeping them alive. Yes, people on ventilators require close supervision and are kept in ICU.
Yes people need to avoid the virus so that they do not wind up in ICU needlessly. There is a limited supply of ICU rooms, ventilators, and nurses and it's very expensive to keep someone on life support.

I know about ventilators. My grandmother was on one. The problem isn't that "ventilators are deadly" but that if you're relying on one you have a tube stuck down your throat 24 hours a day. You have to have morphine to tolerate this. The morphine is what's deadly.
Morphine shuts down your respiratory system making you more reliant on the ventilator. Essentially then you have two processes occurring.
1. The ventilator is helping you breathe at the same time the morphine is making you more reliant on the ventilator.
2. The disease you're fighting is making you weak and more reliant on the ventilator.
To survive you must beat the disease and be removed from the ventilator before the morphine weakens your respiratory system to the point you can't recover. In addition you may now have an addiction to the morphine and need to be weaned off of it.

A ventilator is the last step and unless you're otherwise healthy you may not survive it. But ventilators do not kill people. Just the opposite. Haven't you heard of those cases where someone is in a coma on life support for years while the family fights over whether to remove them from life support?
Maybe you're just misinterpreting what was written but parts of what you wrote are the opposite of the truth and other parts are very obvious. Again, the book is for people who want to argue with dumber people on Facebook but not for anyone who actually wants to learn anything.

And fear sells. On the one hand you have fear of the virus and on the other hand you have fear of the preventive measures. If people weren't so stupid and would take sensible precautions most of us wouldn't have to be afraid of it. Most of us can survive it. But the problem is that if we take no precautions we're going to have hospitals full of the most vulnerable people and anyone that has any other problem will not have necessary access to medical treatment.

I think you should do yourself a favor and delete the book. I know you're campaigning hard to form a bond with your backstabbing frenemy that recommended it but you'd probably do better for yourself to read a book about how to avoid abusive narcissistic relationships.

speaking of #nobelprizewinners, this one called it back in february

 

[caramel sea salt]

 

[nicky wire's legs]

"it's politics playing medicine and that is a very dangerous game"

 

[nicky wire's legs]

its funny that stores have run out of toilet paper and hand sanitizer and lysol wipes but not vitamin d!!! i mean, that would be the thing to buy if you're afraid.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

 

[Deleted member 29235]

It's fascinating watching you try to grapple with the complexities of this disease. You think you are making some kind of argument by posting all these Twitter and Youtube links but in fact what you are doing is (a) just posting things that coincide with your ill-informed and prejudiced view, and (b) making it quite clear you don't understand the first thing about it.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

pedo alert! pedo alert!

 

[caramel sea salt]

It's fascinating watching you try to grapple with the complexities of this disease. You think you are making some kind of argument by posting all these Twitter and Youtube links but in fact what you are doing is (a) just posting things that coincide with your ill-informed and prejudiced view, and (b) making it quite clear you don't understand the first thing about it.

Why don't you argue in good faith for once instead of condescending on people and tell us about the "complexities of this disease" that you seem to know so much about - more than Dr John Ioannidis and Dr Michael Levitt, some of the most renowned scientists in the world?

What exactly is incorrect about Rifke's Copenhagen-Scania comparison?

And while you’re at it, explain to us why some of the countries with the strictest lockdowns and mask mandates have the most deaths per capita (Belgium, Peru, Argentina)?

Why do you think it’s a good idea to make people wear masks? To make children wear masks? The prolonged wearing of masks weakens a person's immune system (at a time when a strong immune system is more important than ever!) Do you not see any problem with this? Do you recognise the conclusions of the Danish mask study? If not, why not?

Do you think mandatory vaccines are a good idea? Do you see any problems with this?

Do you - as a self-explained "good" and virtuous person - not have a problem with wishing bad things on those who question the narrative, something you have consistently been doing since the beginning of this debate?

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Why don't you argue in good faith for once instead of condescending on people and tell us about the "complexities of this disease" that you seem to know so much about - more than Dr John Ioannidis and Dr Michael Levitt, some of the most renowned scientists in the world?

What exactly is incorrect about Rifke's Copenhagen-Scania comparison?

And while you’re at it, explain to us why some of the countries with the strictest lockdowns and mask mandates have the most deaths per capita (Belgium, Peru, Argentina)?

Why do you think it’s a good idea to make people wear masks? To make children wear masks? The prolonged wearing of masks weakens a person's immune system (at a time when a strong immune system is more important than ever!) Do you not see any problem with this? Do you recognise the conclusions of the Danish mask study? If not, why not?

Do you think mandatory vaccines are a good idea? Do you see any problems with this?

Do you - as a self-explained "good" and virtuous person - not have a problem with wishing bad things on those who question the narrative, something you have consistently been doing since the beginning of this debate?

your reply makes my reply above seem somehow ill judged and immature. ( teehee )

 

[Deleted member 29235]

Why don't you argue in good faith for once instead of condescending on people and tell us about the "complexities of this disease" that you seem to know so much about - more than Dr John Ioannidis and Dr Michael Levitt, some of the most renowned scientists in the world?

What exactly is incorrect about Rifke's Copenhagen-Scania comparison?

And while you’re at it, explain to us why some of the countries with the strictest lockdowns and mask mandates have the most deaths per capita (Belgium, Peru, Argentina)?

Why do you think it’s a good idea to make people wear masks? To make children wear masks? The prolonged wearing of masks weakens a person's immune system (at a time when a strong immune system is more important than ever!) Do you not see any problem with this? Do you recognise the conclusions of the Danish mask study? If not, why not?

Do you think mandatory vaccines are a good idea? Do you see any problems with this?

Do you - as a self-explained "good" and virtuous person - not have a problem with wishing bad things on those who question the narrative, something you have consistently been doing since the beginning of this debate?

As I've said before, I'm not interested in people who can't argue a position and rely on endlessly churning out dubious Youtube videos and the like.
To answer your specific point about masks, what it's important about wearing about masks is that it reduces the chance of infecting other people. The Danish study does indeed indicate that it seems to make little difference in contracting the disease but that was anticipated. What it failed to look at was what effects it had on minimising transmission to other people.
However stupid I think anti-vaxxers are, I do not believe in mandatory vaccination. Imposing medical interventions on people is something that should only be done in extreme cases and never without the intervention of the courts etc. Such an imposition would arguably reduce take-up as it would further inflame the anti-scientific feeling that leads to anti-vaccination feeling.

 

[Deleted member 29227]

So now, in the UK, we are allowed to throw caution to the wind, & hope the virus doesn't notice, for a 5 day period, just because of Christmas.
The mind, frankly, boggles.

 

[Deleted member 29235]

So now, in the UK, we are allowed to throw caution to the wind, & hope the virus doesn't notice, for a 5 day period, just because of Christmas.
The mind, frankly, boggles.

Yes, people will die because of this decision. It would normally be unbelievable but these days decisions like this seem to be par for the course.

 

[Deleted member 29227]

Yes, people will die because of this decision. It would normally be unbelievable but these days decisions like this seem to be par for the course.

The figures will make interesting reading early January...matched with much regret.
Ego desperandum.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

As I've said before, I'm not interested in people who can't argue a position and rely on endlessly churning out dubious Youtube videos and the like.
To answer your specific point about masks, what it's important about wearing about masks is that it reduces the chance of infecting other people. The Danish study does indeed indicate that it seems to make little difference in contracting the disease but that was anticipated. What it failed to look at was what effects it had on minimising transmission to other people.
However stupid I think anti-vaxxers are, I do not believe in mandatory vaccination. Imposing medical interventions on people is something that should only be done in extreme cases and never without the intervention of the courts etc. Such an imposition would arguably reduce take-up as it would further inflame the anti-scientific feeling that leads to anti-vaccination feeling.

the reason why im "churning out" these videos and tweets is because i think it makes a different WHO is saying these things. the fact that we have top epidemiologists and nobel prize winners arguing against lockdowns and masks SHOULD make a difference to the argument. if i were simply saying that one shouldnt wear masks then you would ask "but who are you to say that when we have scientists telling us we should". (and fyi, john ioannides is quoted on the WHO website).

i think this "you dont know anything about this" argument is so ridiculous. there really isnt anything to know. it's like my facebook friend who stated she didnt want to get into "an argument about the science of masks" with me, as though she somehow had some secret knowledge about masks that was inaccessible to me. what science?! there is no science backing up the wearing of masks. and the fact of the matter is that, probably much like you, if she COULD have gotten into an argument about it, if she ACTUALLY had a point to argue, she damn well WOULD have.

if masks are so effective in reducing the chance of infecting other people, WHY have they never before been recommended in the case of flu outbreaks, sars coV-2, etc? why up until 2020 did the WHO, dr. fauci, and every other scientist say that they were not effective in stopping the transmission of respiratory illness and that they did more harm than good? you really think forty years of science has just suddenly changed becaause of a few rushed, biased studies?

 

[Trans]

As I've said before, I'm not interested in people who can't argue a position and rely on endlessly churning out dubious Youtube videos and the like.
To answer your specific point about masks, what it's important about wearing about masks is that it reduces the chance of infecting other people. The Danish study does indeed indicate that it seems to make little difference in contracting the disease but that was anticipated. What it failed to look at was what effects it had on minimising transmission to other people.
However stupid I think anti-vaxxers are, I do not believe in mandatory vaccination. Imposing medical interventions on people is something that should only be done in extreme cases and never without the intervention of the courts etc. Such an imposition would arguably reduce take-up as it would further inflame the anti-scientific feeling that leads to anti-vaccination feeling.

I agree with that last paragraph about the forced vaccination. Would do more harm than good and probably mean less people getting one

 

[Deleted member 29235]

the reason why im "churning out" these videos and tweets is because i think it makes a different WHO is saying these things. the fact that we have top epidemiologists and nobel prize winners arguing against lockdowns and masks SHOULD make a difference to the argument. if i were simply saying that one shouldnt wear masks then you would ask "but who are you to say that when we have scientists telling us we should". (and fyi, john ioannides is quoted on the WHO website).

i think this "you dont know anything about this" argument is so ridiculous. there really isnt anything to know. it's like my facebook friend who stated she didnt want to get into "an argument about the science of masks" with me, as though she somehow had some secret knowledge about masks that was inaccessible to me. what science?! there is no science backing up the wearing of masks. and the fact of the matter is that, probably much like you, if she COULD have gotten into an argument about it, if she ACTUALLY had a point to argue, she damn well WOULD have.

if masks are so effective in reducing the chance of infecting other people, WHY have they never before been recommended in the case of flu outbreaks, sars coV-2, etc? why up until 2020 did the WHO, dr. fauci, and every other scientist say that they were not effective in stopping the transmission of respiratory illness and that they did more harm than good? you really think forty years of science has just suddenly changed becaause of a few rushed, biased studies?

You think mask-wearing is a new thing?

When Mask-Wearing Rules in the 1918 Pandemic Faced Resistance

Most people complied, but some resisted (or poked holes in their masks to smoke).

www.history.com

 

[nicky wire's legs]

also @Radis Noir how do you know masks reduce the transmission of infection? where did you hear that? what is the science stating that that is actually true? do you KNOW the science or are you just repeating something you heard?

 

[nicky wire's legs]

You think mask-wearing is a new thing?

When Mask-Wearing Rules in the 1918 Pandemic Faced Resistance

Most people complied, but some resisted (or poked holes in their masks to smoke).

www.history.com

im aware of that actually because just like you i saw the photo circulating the net of the cat in the mask from the 1918 pandemic

 

[nicky wire's legs]

sometimes it's better just to write you off as a pedo like i initially had done

 

[Deleted member 29235]

im aware of that actually because just like you i saw the photo circulating the net of the cat in the mask from the 1918 pandemic

So why did you make an assertion that is clearly untrue?