Covid 19 CRISIS

I haven't seen any beheadings yet. I kinda look forward to them, do keep in mind the last time this was tried, the people calling for guillotining the ruling classes were themselves beheaded about four years later :p

Yeah it's just bluster there was 8 years of it directed at Obama and Hillary. Even Trump can't lock her up.

IMG_20200901_083053.jpg


It's 185k people and we look like we're going to surpass that 240k that was predicted. I'd wager 100% of that number are poor people. I think if this was a class war the multi-billionaires are winning.


What's infuriating about this is the complete lack of logic. I mean you get fat and you say hey if I don't weigh myself I'm not fat? What the hell is the point of lying about numbers. You still have infected but now you have the ignorant going out adding to the spread.

I've heard too many use the, "The vaccine will allow Bill Gates/George Soros/Antifa/The Boogey Man to inject you with microchips/gay jeans [sic]/nanobots/communism". ?

My response to those people is to confirm everything their saying. It was all planned, I was there, the reptiloids hosted and the grey's brought the Illuminati from their moon base to work on it too.

2s07lp.gif
 
Last edited:
The Finnish Corona tracking app has now been downloaded 1.4 million times. It was only launched this Monday and we’re a country of 5.5 million. Not bad.
 
The Finnish Corona tracking app has now been downloaded 1.4 million times. It was only launched this Monday and we’re a country of 5.5 million. Not bad.
Not bad indeed.

Getting back to the earlier discussion with @Blind_Io on the Hong Kong case - Nature reports on a study from Iceland published in the NEJM. In a survey of 30.000 people, 90% of those previously infected with covid showed steady (i.e. not declining) antibody levels four months after infection.

EDIT: Here's another deep dive on Covid, immunity, vaccines, and the Hong Kong case. It's already two weeks old, so ages in Corona research times, but I found it a very good overview that is understandable to a layman like me:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02400-7
Altogether, the diverse and sometimes devastating effects of SARS-CoV-2 on the body and its ease of spread have made it an unusual foe. But the immune system’s response to the virus, so far, has held few surprises, says [Chicago immunologist] Barreiro. In this case, he adds, ‘boring’ bodes well for long-lasting immunity. “There are still a lot of things that we don’t know, but so far, there’s nothing really unique.”
 
Last edited:
CoGOsnL.jpeg


To be fair, U of IL is in the middle of cornfields. What else are you going to do?

Never mind the fact that there’s a fast food restaurant that focuses on Coney Island hot dogs and burgers with the name of Wienerschnitzel. :(
 
Last edited:
While it is still too early to celebrate I'd like to point out that the current reasonable best case vaccination scenario of late 2020/early 2021 is bang within the 12 to 15 months development timeframe put out as a reasonable best case scenario when this shit started. Even if all frontrunners fail and we will have to wait longer, it would still have been a reasonable best case prediction.
So any "expert" who said it's impossible, or promised wildly optimistic timelines should go on your naughty list of self-important idiots. This includes most talking heads in German politics and media, for example.
 
Last edited:
Trump said to look for one in early November, right around election time. Coincidence?
 
And it won’t come from his lover, Putin. Nope, nope, totally homegrown, we didn’t need anyone’s help.
 
Trump said to look for one in early November, right around election time. Coincidence?
While of course a vaccine is Trumps only hope of winning and by now he'd probably try to get approval for almost anything, we have to keep in mind that Pfizer/BioNTech (who to this date refused to take money from Trump except for actually shipped product) from April onward aimed for an October 2020 approval. And while Oxford/AstraZeneca by now are on Trump's payroll, they even aimed for a September release before Trump got onboard.

So with both of these there's some hope for sound science behind any request for regulatory approval. Keep in mind that Pfizer defeated a foe bigger than cancer: Male erectile dysfunction :p

What I can see, though, is that some regulatory bodies will wait for some longer-term data before rollout just to remove the scent of political manipulation from the product.
 
I can see, though, is that some regulatory bodies will wait for some longer-term data before rollout just to remove the scent of political manipulation from the product.

I find it hard to believe that they were able to nail it the first time, do three phases of human trials, and scale up to 400 million doses in less than a year.
 
I find it hard to believe that they were able to nail it the first time, do three phases of human trials, and scale up to 400 million doses in less than a year.
Try to see it differently: If funding for SARS/MERS vaccine development wouldn't have been cut the moment it was obvious no white people will die, we'd probably be in the clear by now. This way, discontinued research had to be dug up (instead of "only" updating an existing vaccine, yearly flu shot style).

Or in other words - without being able to start from almost finished work on other coronavirus vaccines, we wouldn't be close to where we are now.

And the 400 million doses - that'll take a whole lot longer than end of this year, especially if only one of the current frontrunners comes through.

EDIT: Also, this has nothing to do with believing - so far, data (Phase 1/2) is openly available.

EDIT2: Funnily enough, Phase 1/2 data on the Russian Vaccine looks strong as well.
 
Last edited:
Well, unless Putin has some magical change of heart for his people, I will remain skeptical of a Russian vaccine.
 
Well, unless Putin has some magical change of heart for his people, I will remain skeptical of a Russian vaccine.
The Russians/Soviets (sadly) have a tradition of rolling out untested vaccines that goes back to the 1950s. So far, they've always been lucky. But that does not justify this recklessness yet.
 
Preemptive post: Nevada case of a single person developing worse symptoms the second time around: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02506-y

EDIT: It seems like the Nevada case had about four weeks between first and second infection. I can't help but to think back to the Iceland study about 90% of people showing antibodies (which is in line with vaccines working in 90% of all animals in testing, btw) and be like "shit, that's what happens to the other 10%" - but of course, I am not an immunulogist.
 
Last edited:
Preemptive post: Nevada case of a single person developing worse symptoms the second time around: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02506-y

EDIT: It seems like the Nevada case had about four weeks between first and second infection. I can't help but to think back to the Iceland study about 90% of people showing antibodies (which is in line with vaccines working in 90% of all animals in testing, btw) and be like "shit, that's what happens to the other 10%" - but of course, I am not an immunulogist.

I mentioned that case, though not specifically, a few posts back. So far they are 1 of only 4 confirmed cases of reinfection GLOBALLY. It sucks for 4 people, but medically and statistically speaking, 4 cases of reinfection means nothing. Media pick up on these isolated cases but it's non-news.
 
I mentioned that case, though not specifically, a few posts back. So far they are 1 of only 4 confirmed cases of reinfection GLOBALLY. It sucks for 4 people, but medically and statistically speaking, 4 cases of reinfection means nothing. Media pick up on these isolated cases but it's non-news.
And expanding on that, if we stay with the Iceland figure of 90% of people developing solid antibodies, even a few (hundred) thousand of reinfections are to be expected. At the same time, we know from the fishing vessel outbreak that antibodies indeed do protect from reinfection. Yep, non-news indeed.
 
.
So any "expert" who said it's impossible, or promised wildly optimistic timelines should go on your naughty list of self-important idiots. This includes most talking heads in German politics and media, for example.
Another "how to spot a bad expert/attention whore" top tip: Anyone claiming that the pandemic will never end unless some arbitrary goal (mostly: vaccination) is met.
This is not true, simple as that. Anyone claming "we will have to live with spending a few months in lockdown each winter" is a fearmonger.
Having a vaccine or medicine or faster tests available will determine how quick the pandemic ends and how many people die before it does. But our bodies have amazingly different immune systems that react to the same virus in different ways (one of the things that makes large-scale vaccine studies so important and vaccine development so hard). This gives us the evolutionary advantage that no, or only very few pathogens have the power to kill us all. Which is how humankind survived the centuries until the advent of modern medicine, by the way, without even having the possibility to socially distance for longer periods of time.
So what we are doing here, socially distancing as much and as long as we do to flatten the curve, is making sure that as few people as possible die until medicine caught up. The longer it takes, the more people die. And at some point, maybe we will have to declare defeat and let the virus run it's course. I don't believe we will have to do this, but it's the worst case. Then, it's a question of how many people die. A few million? A few hundred million? Maybe a billion? It's certainly possible, with the current mortality rate being around .5% before even hitting Africa. But humankind will prevail due to the robustness of our immune systems, and it will do so in a not socially distanced way.
Same holds true for "not enough people will vaccinate" - the more people are protected, the less people die.

But what if the virus mutates?
Here's my personal opinion as someone who knows statistics - any siginificant mutation would be good news right now. The virus occupies a sweet spot of being benign in most cases, so it can spread, but being severe often enough to become a public health threat. So if it mutates and becomes more severe - good! Less asymptomatic cases make isolation of spreaders easier and help to control the virus, while the more visible threat to personal health enhances compliance with protective measures. But it it mutates and becomes less severe, with even more mild/asymptomatic cases, it's good news as well, since the load on the healthcare systems drop and we don't have to fear getting sick any more. People will just have a cold more often.

Bottom line: Pandemics end as our immune systems adapt, and most mutations are worse for the virus than for the hosts. Let's just make sure as little people as possible die along the way.
 
Top