COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Pargat Perrer]

Waste of time. if you haven't figured out that it is an easily treatable virus on early onset of symptoms and
Govt interference in a Dr Patient relationship to deal with this is a crime against humanity we have nothing
further to discuss.

Speaking as a layman on this entire subject matter of viruses / vaccines / immunology, I looked at these two articles and there was no amount of critical thinking that would lead me to conclude the two articles contained falsehoods. Therefore, and also since Sid you are already "wasting your time" by even posting here and trying to convince a dozen or so chess players of your viewpoint (whether it is valid or not), I think it is incumbent on you to prove such falsehoods are indeed in the two articles.

But aside from that.... I think Sid has raised a valid question of whether the world, or at least the U.S. and Canada, should or should not take a path of herd immunity in handling Covid-19. Because if we do indeed go the herd immunity route, we sacrifice the older and more vulnerable population (and some younger, healthier people), whereas if we DON'T go the herd immunity route, we risk a much larger overall set of fatalities via economic depression and the poverty that comes from that. Let's face it, a depression in the USA and Canada right now would kill millions of people from starvation and lack of treatment for many other health problems besides Covid-19.

So in considering this question, I think we need to think also about timing. Why? Because if you haven't noticed, most South American nations (Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Venuezela, and others) have been in the top group of per capita deaths from Covid-19. And what does that tell us? Well, those are the nations that had the influenza virus(es) circulating all summer long. Their flu season is our summer, our flu season is our winter / spring.

So what this means (to me, again a layman) is that if we go the herd immunity route THIS WINTER, it will lead to unexpectedly large numbers of deaths attributable to Covid-19 which will come about because both Covid-19 AND the flu virus are circulating at the same time. In other words, a person's immune system is busy attacking two major virus attacks at once. This appears to be what happened this past summer in South America.

So if we are to go the herd immunity route, which indeed we may have to -- we can't afford an economic depression -- I can only hope we can forestall that path until the end of the flu season in March / April.

[Kerry Liles]

Parat, it seems Sid is saying he doesn't want to engage in any further conversation unless it is with people who agree with him (!) Perhaps he is running for the Supreme Court?
But I digress a little...

Here is an interesting article about herd immunity:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/art-20486808

I don't know if you were suggesting going for herd immunity based on a vaccine or on mass infections... I think that
there may not be sufficient evidence that recovering from COVID provides sufficient antibodies (there have been a
small number of re-infections but that could well be subtly different or mutated variants involved).

I know very little about this entire subject and so far have been listening to Public Health and Dr. Isaac Bogoch
and Dr. Eileen De Villa etc.

I am down for the vaccine route and would be among the first to be willing to give a properly vetted vaccine a try.

Frankly I am not entirely sure what Sid's perceived conflict between Governments and doctor-patients is all about
- I guess I will have to try to go back and re-read his posts more carefully. It does sort of sound like the beginning of
a conspiracy theory though... ( not sure any level of government is competent enough to be that organized to take
on the entire health infrastructure).

[Neil Frarey]

Parat, it seems Sid is saying he doesn't want to engage in any further conversation unless it is with people who agree with him (!) Perhaps he is running for the Supreme Court?
But I digress a little...

Not only do you digress, but it seems that you hate warm puppies too, ha!

[Sid Belzberg]

Please try. Especially the second article.

1) The first article focused on the veracity of the signatures and ignored the fact that the sponsors of this declaration are among the worlds most respected epidemiologists. No commentary at all about the merits of the declaration itself. Lots of petition have invalid signatures, especially if it is a controversial subject so it is very plausible that many would not put their true identity on the document.

2) The second article appears more reasonable but the critiques from various scientists are based on the wrong assumptions

A) Dr tang questions how vulnerable can mix with children. The question ignores the fact that many treatments exist for early on set of symptoms for COVID and even prophylactic interventions have been used succesfuly in India via an Ivermectin combo that is good for early high risk patients and prophylactic treatment. The Infection fatality rate in India is a fraction of the US or Canada.
Most deaths in India were prior to adppting early intervention such as Ivermectin and HCQ.
Hence Dr. Lang's statement below is false
"But we don’t yet have these additional ‘tools’ (the vaccine and antivirals) for COVID-19, to assist with this ‘Focused Protection’ approach."

B)Dr. Beales false statement
This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them
In Canada 81% of COVID deaths are in elder care facilities. The chances of a healthy person under the age of 70 succumbing to COVID is remote. Again completely disoccunts
the idea of existng prohpylactics or early interventions with antivrals as a way of dealing with the vlunerable
C) Dr Micheal Heads Argument
We saw that even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that, and 20-30% of the UK population would be classed as vulnerable to a severe COVID-19 infection.
This statement is true and the UK hads itself to blame for this horrific outcome as early interventions that work have been known since March and they were not used to help this group. The UK has one of the worst Infection Fatality Rates on the Planet.
D)Dr Steven Grffiths Statement
It is hoped that vaccines will provide superior responses, and indeed vaccination remains the only robust means of achieving herd immunity.
Antivrals and prophylactics exist today we do not need a vaccine.
E)Dr Simon Clark
Just to find out whether this is possibdle, would be to consign a great many more thousands of people to their deaths, and many more would be left suffering from the effects of long covid
Nonsense! Thousands do not have to die or have long tern effects with antivirals and prohylactics.

F)Dr Naismitth
“It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does. In this pandemic, which has been such a disaster, it is clear that there have been many mistakes by medics, scientists and politicians. Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.

“I would support the signatories giving their full consideration to all the scientific issues surrounding their prescription so that they might give more actionable policy advice.”

Antivrals and prophylactics for vulnerable groups is completely actionable policy advice

G)Dr Rossman
Third, countries that have forgone lockdown restrictions in favour of personal responsibility and focused protection of the elderly, such as Sweden, were not able to successfully protect the vulnerable population

Sweden sat their and watched their elderly literally suffocate and made no effort to treat on early on set of symptoms. Nothing to do with not beng able to protect. The rest of the population is doing just fine.

So I have posted evidence why early intervention works that all of the above ignores. Why do they ignore, because they are funded and paid by Welcome/Gates that are determined to sell vaccines.
I have posted charts earlier that provide convincing evidence of countries that used early intervention with antivrals did far better than first world countries that did not in terms of Infection fatality rate and case fatality rates.
Many physicians in North America for the first time ever faced govt intervention when wanting to intervene early and this is a crime against humanity. if you want information supporting my contention please go to https://covexit.com. All of the interviews are with world class Scientists and Dr's who have had great results with early intervention.
Also Here is a reminder!
1)Canada and France HCQ totally illegal
2) US effectively banned HCQ in some States
3)India HCQ Totally embraced after delay
4)HCQ embraced form the start Israel, Morroco, Malaysia, South Korea,

[Aris Marghetis]

Here is an interesting article about herd immunity:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/art-20486808
I don't know if you were suggesting going for herd immunity based on a vaccine or on mass infections... I think that
there may not be sufficient evidence that recovering from COVID provides sufficient antibodies (there have been a
small number of re-infections but that could well be subtly different or mutated variants involved).
...
I am down for the vaccine route and would be among the first to be willing to give a properly vetted vaccine a try.
Frankly I am not entirely sure what Sid's perceived conflict between Governments and doctor-patients is all about
- I guess I will have to try to go back and re-read his posts more carefully. It does sort of sound like the beginning of
a conspiracy theory though... ( not sure any level of government is competent enough to be that organized to take
on the entire health infrastructure).

Thanks Kerry! I really like how clearly that article is written, any "layman" could understand it. I especially appreciate the points about overwhelming health care systems. At times, I'm surprised that we don't talk more about that, that we focus just on infection rates and death rates. I believe that ramifications that lead to Excess Deaths are insidiously devastating, like when an American medical institution closes because they can't maintain revenue from elective surgeries because they're swamped with infected people, even if not many of the infected will die, etc. And on the Canadian side, I understand even less the attitude that people should be free, for example, to not wear masks. Like you're getting free health care, so yeah, you can be asked to mask up lol

[Peter McKillop]

... It does sort of sound like the beginning of a conspiracy theory though...

да .........

[Kerry Liles]

Many physicians in North America for the first time ever faced govt intervention when wanting to intervene early and this is a crime against humanity. if you want information supporting my contention please go to https://covexit.com. All of the interviews are with world class Scientists and Dr's who have had great results with early intervention.

At the very least there is a certificate issue (security issue) with that website - even ignoring that problem ends up in a 404 error (not found).
Is that site now defunct?

[Lorne Y]

Frankly I am not entirely sure what Sid's perceived conflict between Governments and doctor-patients is all about
- I guess I will have to try to go back and re-read his posts more carefully. It does sort of sound like the beginning of
a conspiracy theory though... ( not sure any level of government is competent enough to be that organized to take
on the entire health infrastructure).

Sid belzberg? And a Conspiray Theory? I dont know!

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?la...rc=typed_query

[Sid Belzberg]

At the very least there is a certificate issue (security issue) with that website - even ignoring that problem ends up in a 404 error (not found).
Is that site now defunct?

Sorry typo
http://covexit.com/

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid belzberg? And a Conspiray Theory? I dont know!

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?la...rc=typed_query

Scientific paper from a world class group of scientists. Hardly a "conspiracy theory"

https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4jeLy2z35l

You want to say this is a "conspiracy theory" also ...right?

https://aapsonline.org/fda-can-provi...xychloroquine/

Here is what Bill Gates says about Hydroxy Chloroquine As per above FDA has no evidence to support the contention of "severe side effects" and Bill Gates does not either. He simply flat out lies like the FDA above did by their own admission.


"This is an age of science, but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine looked good. On the other hand, there are lots of good therapeutic drugs coming that are proven to work without the severe side effects."

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2...covid-vaccine/

Even if we thought HCQ was unsafe despite being used for 65 years safely the issue is not the scientific merit of the drug.
The issue is outside interference in the relationship between the physician and the patient by an outside body.. In the history of medicine this has never happened before and it is a crime against humanity happening before. our very eyes. I have never in my life seen discouragement of treating a disease early rather than later.

I am not even convinced it is the Govt as much as Big Pharma duping the govt into bad policies in pursuit of a very profitable vaccine business and very expensive and ineffective treatments like Remdesevir.

Even CNN published this today about Remdesevir.

https://www.cnn.com/webview/world/li...a28b54423c2bf1

This is a good article that in my opinion put things in perspective.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/s...-morality-tale

[Peter McKillop]

Scientific paper from a world class group of scientists. "Hardly a "conspiracy theory"

https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4jeLy2z35l

...

Here's a link to a group that disagrees with your assessment of the above paper. How does a reader, like me for example, decide whether to believe what you're posting above? Do you have a link to a credible, third-party discussion that supports your contention w.r.t. the above paper?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/...t-conspiracies

[Peter McKillop]

Here's a link to a group that disagrees with your assessment of the above paper. How does a reader, like me for example, decide whether to believe what you're posting above? Do you have a link to a credible, third-party discussion that supports your contention w.r.t. the above paper?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/...t-conspiracies

Apparently Forbes is also less than impressed with your paper.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#2474264022d5

[Lucas Davies]

Massive contrast between Trump and Biden tonight:

Biden talked about how important masks are, and says that what he would do is get the governors together and ask them to keep telling their people to wear masks and how important they are, and if that doesn't work then he'll go to the mayors and tell them, until as many people as possible are wearing them.

Trump said that he's "okay" with masks, and then immediately started talking about the problems with them and how there are actually a lot of people who think that they're not good.

Trump supporters will keep defending him, knowing full well that he's responsible for the deaths of so many people.

[Peter McKillop]

Scientific paper from a world class group of scientists. Hardly a "conspiracy theory"

https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4jeLy2z35l

You want to say this is a "conspiracy theory" also ...right?

https://aapsonline.org/fda-can-provi...xychloroquine/
.....

So now I get to your second link and I'm wondering who are 'aaps'? Are they like the American Medical Association? Here's what Wikipedia says:

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1944. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association has promoted a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance."

___________

So, I'm well aware that Wikipedia contains a lot of dubious information but, regardless, it doesn't give me any comfort, as a reader of your post, to find out that aaps may be a political association of conservative whack jobs. If you disagree with Wiki's characterization of aaps, do you have a link to a credible site that presents a different picture of the group?

[Sid Belzberg]

Here's a link to a group that disagrees with your assessment of the above paper. How does a reader, like me for example, decide whether to believe what you're posting above? Do you have a link to a credible, third-party discussion that supports your contention w.r.t. the above paper?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/...t-conspiracies

Peter both articles do not discuss the merit of the paper itself. Instead they attack the messenger. That should actually tell you alot.

This author is a well respected scientist with many peer reviewed papers https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...=1&oi=scholart you will see that she has published many papers in journals such as Lancet and Nature with hundreds of citations on many of her papers.

I hope that answers your question as to how to assess the credibility of a scientist.