CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
Elysium said:
jshell said:
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
ruggedscotty said:
Elysium said:
jshell said:
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Why did we have pandemic plans and responses formulated anyway if we were just going to follow others into damaging lockdowns, spending and non-sterilising pseudo-vaccines?
superlightr said:
Elysium said:
Agreed. None of it worked. It is purely through luck that we ended up with a more transmissible, but less severe version of the virus.
with respect thats not true. Its not luck. Its how viruses have to evolve in order to survive. Its been well known thats the MO of viruses. Its why we had a pandemic plan which unfortunately and tragically for various popularity voting reasons/shrills we then didnt feking follow. The govt response made the issue we all now face worse. Edited by superlightr on Thursday 16th May 15:59
jshell said:
Add in a non-sterilising vaccine that can force evolution off the natural rails and we could have had a far worse Covid experience!
exactly how? infection is non-sterilising as well, exactly like the vaccines. whatever the virus did as far as an evolutionary path being 'off the rails or otherwise' being taken was going to be the same whether or not exposure was gained via vaccine or infection.jshell said:
ruggedscotty said:
Elysium said:
jshell said:
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Why did we have pandemic plans and responses formulated anyway if we were just going to follow others into damaging lockdowns, spending and non-sterilising pseudo-vaccines?
isaldiri said:
jshell said:
Add in a non-sterilising vaccine that can force evolution off the natural rails and we could have had a far worse Covid experience!
exactly how? infection is non-sterilising as well, exactly like the vaccines. whatever the virus did as far as an evolutionary path being 'off the rails or otherwise' being taken was going to be the same whether or not exposure was gained via vaccine or infection.One of the main reasons I thought not including previous infections in any (deeply wrong) vaccine mandate legislation was bordering on criminal.
ruggedscotty said:
This is the thing that no one should forget, go back to the beginning, the very beginning, no one knew how this was going to pan out, some serious time was given to it and breakdown of the situation that faced us. there was a fear in a lot of people involved with virus and health care that this could have gone the other way, there was nothing to stop it, just natural variance of the virus genetics. it didnt go the way they feared. If it had....
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Says the guy who wanted all the dirty unjabbed refusniks carted off to isolation facilities and only let out once they'd been implanted with RFID chips.Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
r3g said:
ruggedscotty said:
This is the thing that no one should forget, go back to the beginning, the very beginning, no one knew how this was going to pan out, some serious time was given to it and breakdown of the situation that faced us. there was a fear in a lot of people involved with virus and health care that this could have gone the other way, there was nothing to stop it, just natural variance of the virus genetics. it didnt go the way they feared. If it had....
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Says the guy who wanted all the dirty unjabbed refusniks carted off to isolation facilities and only let out once they'd been implanted with RFID chips.Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
isaldiri said:
jshell said:
Add in a non-sterilising vaccine that can force evolution off the natural rails and we could have had a far worse Covid experience!
exactly how? infection is non-sterilising as well, exactly like the vaccines. whatever the virus did as far as an evolutionary path being 'off the rails or otherwise' being taken was going to be the same whether or not exposure was gained via vaccine or infection.At the beginning of the vaccine roll out there was a lot of discussion about the risks of vaccinating during a pandemic, when viral mutation might be more likely as this creates the danger that the immune system will not be able to adapt to the new variant.
I was interested to see that Wikipedia states this may be why the bivalent booster was relatively ineffective against Omicron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_s...
Elysium said:
jshell said:
ruggedscotty said:
Elysium said:
jshell said:
Elysium said:
RemarkLima said:
The mask debate rumbles on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
The virus outsmarted us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/15/covid-...
Summary seems to be, 19% effective early one, reducing to no effective.
The 19% seems a bit dubious but of course, YMMV.
We tried to control it with masks and lockdowns, which simply meant that a version that could not be controlled by those things took over.
We chucked the established pandemic response procedures in the bin and went straight for lockdowns and fast-tracked vaccines which is folly inside a pandemic.
We have NO idea what evolutionary pressure that we've put on this virus or how we've pushed it to mutate down various paths.
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Why did we have pandemic plans and responses formulated anyway if we were just going to follow others into damaging lockdowns, spending and non-sterilising pseudo-vaccines?
Elysium said:
I think there is a difference though, as the vaccine exposes the immune system to the spike protein, whereas infection involves the entire virus.
At the beginning of the vaccine roll out there was a lot of discussion about the risks of vaccinating during a pandemic, when viral mutation might be more likely as this creates the danger that the immune system will not be able to adapt to the new variant.
I was interested to see that Wikipedia states this may be why the bivalent booster was relatively ineffective against Omicron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_s...
I'd have to disagree there was much of a difference whether first exposure was via the spike protein or the entire virus. And if it was meaningfully different, then viral mutation following widespread infection rather than vaccination should mean that the immune system was even less likely to adapt to the new variant as it would have be even more different than one that simply evaded spike protein resistance in order to widely infect people. The experience of the existing hcovs imo showed it didn't really ultimately matter either way and the various fears/discussion of antibody dependent enhancement or original antigenic sin were somewhat misplaced. Obviously not a microbiologist or virologist though so that's purely conjecture on my part.At the beginning of the vaccine roll out there was a lot of discussion about the risks of vaccinating during a pandemic, when viral mutation might be more likely as this creates the danger that the immune system will not be able to adapt to the new variant.
I was interested to see that Wikipedia states this may be why the bivalent booster was relatively ineffective against Omicron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_s...
jameswills said:
Yes those pesky viruses that no one can see or test for just moving around “infecting” people. And then “mutating” and creating “versions”.
And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
OK, so you think viruses are just a fairytale? That they don't actually exist? Any of them? I'm genuinely curious to know if that is your view.And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
grumbledoak said:
It looks like there might be some consequences at least for Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance -
BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
Peter Daszak, soon to be found dead, suspected long covid, with a bullet in the back of his head.BREAKING: HHS Suspends Funding and Proposes Formal Debarment of EcoHealth Alliance, Cites Evidence from COVID Select Report
https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-s...
For those not aware, EcoHealth Alliance was the organisation behind a 2018 "DEFUSE" research grant proposal to conduct research on Bat coronaviruses of the same type as SARS at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Literally proposing to create a virus that would have been almost exactly SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/great-covid-cover-...
Thrown under a bus to protect Fauci? I wonder if it will end there...
Elysium said:
We had good information on the severity of the virus and we spent years planning for pandemics. But we ignored it all and panicked instead.
Well others spent quite a few years cultivating a response that played out exactly as it did, and weirdly positioned themselves to profit from it hugely and did. That’s the questions people should be asking. But no, keep arguing about masks, and “it could have been worse”.
Hants PHer said:
jameswills said:
Yes those pesky viruses that no one can see or test for just moving around “infecting” people. And then “mutating” and creating “versions”.
And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
OK, so you think viruses are just a fairytale? That they don't actually exist? Any of them? I'm genuinely curious to know if that is your view.And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
Yahonza said:
jameswills said:
Yeah I do, I’ve found scant evidence that they exist personally from my digging. What have you found out to back up the virus theory?
Keep digging. 
It’s a fascinating time to be on PistonHeads.
andyeds1234 said:
Every day brings a new and creative way for Mr Wills to be a contrarian.
It’s a fascinating time to be on PistonHeads.
You say contrarian, I say someone who has actually bothered to look into things for myself after many years of just being told to accept that X=1. But I’ll take that, usually get called a lot worse It’s a fascinating time to be on PistonHeads.
r3g said:
ruggedscotty said:
This is the thing that no one should forget, go back to the beginning, the very beginning, no one knew how this was going to pan out, some serious time was given to it and breakdown of the situation that faced us. there was a fear in a lot of people involved with virus and health care that this could have gone the other way, there was nothing to stop it, just natural variance of the virus genetics. it didnt go the way they feared. If it had....
Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Says the guy who wanted all the dirty unjabbed refusniks carted off to isolation facilities and only let out once they'd been implanted with RFID chips.Looking back in hindsight things could have been done differently, its easy to say now, but back then they did not have that information, they were acting cautious and with best intentions I believe. no one could have predicted how this would have went.
Its over now, was the cure worse than the disease, probably looking back from here right now we could say it was. but imagine if we had not tried to take precautions, and that it had turned into the nightmare that was feared.
we can only hope that lessons were learned, that we dont make the same mistakes again. That first lockdown, was it right ? Yup it was, as they dodnt have enough to go on to let it run. the other lockdowns were not required, but better provision should have been in place to let people keep going with life. they knew after that first lockdown that it was a relatively mild disease. letting it burn might have been the quickest way to get through it and develop a natural resistance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff