Thus, on finding a statement in an article at Zero Hedge asserting, on reliable authority, that the Covid-19 death toll has been comparable to that of the seasonal flu, I was overcome by an irresistible impulse to post it at the Unz Review, as a comment on an article by Ron himself:
|
Nah!
Here's another comment I attempted to make at Ron's Review, in response to a comment referring to a WHO tweet that was subsequently deleted:
"There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."First, to say that there is no evidence of X is no evidence of of not X. But in any case the tweet [by the WHO] was deleted, so it would appear that their claim (the WHO's claim, that is) was either unsupported by evidence or known to be false. Second, to claim, as you do, that antibodies for Covid19 are short-lived is not the same as saying they are non-existent. Third, if antibodies to Covid19 exist -- as they must or immunological tests for the disease would be impossible -- and as even the WHO now acknowledges, that implies a degree of immunity in those who have been infected. And remember, without an immune system response, every case of Covid19 would be fatal. The fact is, Covid19, like the flu, a virus of the same family*, is a relatively mild disease except in a minority of cases (chiefly the elderly afflicted by one or several other serious diseases). The usual mildness of the disease is evident from the fact that although a substantial proportion of the population where serological surveys have been conducted have been shown to have been infected, the death rate as a proportion of those with antibodies is low, in the order of no more than about 0.3%. However, the antibody tests are not known to be highly reliable and the actual death rate is likely much lower. So far, the reported US death toll is just over 60,000 of 328 million Americans, and with the daily totals trending down, the total is thus unlikely to exceed 120,000. If so, the disease will prove considerably less lethal than both the Asian flu of 1957/58 that killed 70,000 of 149 million Americans, or the 1968 Hong Kong flu (H3N2 virus) that killed about 100,000 out of 200 million Americans. |
Yes, the Unz Review is a weird world, which deserves further scrutiny.
Related:
Vox Popoli: Facebook bans The Unz Review
Ron Unz, has said he believes the reason for his being banned on Facebook is "
| Facebook’s plans to crack down on misinformation related to our ongoing Covid-19 epidemic." |
Taibbi seems to have caught the not-so-deep inner core of CV-19:
ReplyDeletehttps://taibbi.substack.com/p/temporary-coronavirus-censorship
"The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant. It’s astonishing that they don’t see this."
No it ain't. Harvard has been pushing for a sort of pointy-head dictatorship since the 50s. Now they're just being open about it.
You just saw it early. And you might be safe up there; the States are Screwed this time.
"You just saw it early. And you might be safe up there"
DeleteYou kidding? With Justin Trudeau running the show?
That boy never saw a dictatorship he didn't like -- just like his Dad. Until now, he's been slapped down for expressing admiration for China's dictatorship and the wonderful world of Fidel Castro, a close family friend. But in an age of emerging censorship, the trend is Justin's friend.
Thanks for re-posting. It is a crying shame Unz readers probably won't see such work and probably won't know they aren't seeing it because it is intentionally withheld from them. I wondered why you weren't commenting any more at Unz, and am outright alarmed and scandalized to learn censorship is the reason. Wow. These are dangerous times. Unz knows not what he does. (I really believe that.)
ReplyDelete"Unz knows not what he does. (I really believe that.)"
DeleteI respect your open mindedness, but I find something sinister about the Unz Review as it now unfolds. Far from dedication to free and intelligent debate, it seems clearly to be a propaganda operation. To what end? Ha! That's the question.
"First, to say that there is no evidence of X is no evidence of of not X. But in any case the tweet [by the WHO] was deleted, so it would appear that their claim (the WHO's claim, that is) was either unsupported by evidence or known to be false."
ReplyDeleteWhat the WHO was originally claiming if taken as true would also have meant vaccination would be ineffective and worthless.
"There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection."
Okay, vaccinations work, when they work, by stimulating the body to produce antibodies to whatever antigen or antigen signal is in the vaccine (in some attenuated form.) However, if these antibodies do not protect people from a second infection (or therefore a third, a fourth...a hundredth?) what's the point.
The damned Bill Gates-WHO- vaccine connection is, I am afraid, part of what's going on in the background. You mentioned WHO deleted the claim. Well, they could have done it when they realized not only were they scaring the shit out of people, as intended, but also invalidating Bill Gates being able to ride in on his white horse to save the day with the vaccines he's hustling.
(I hope and pray people wise up to the dangers, even lethal dangers, of vaccines, especially poorly tested ones, as the Covid-19 vaccine will almost certainly be, as it is getting rushed into circulation. If Bill Gates was a humanitarian instead of an evil, greedy man protecting his investments, he would have cooled his jets after some of his "investments" killed and maimed third world children.)
"What the WHO was originally claiming if taken as true would also have meant vaccination would be ineffective and worthless."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's a key point.
And if a vaccine works, that is, if a vaccine induces the formation of antibodies to Covid19, then Covid19 must induce antibodies, which must account for recovery from the disease -- when there is recovery, as there is in the vast majority of cases.
The reluctance of health authorities in the US, Canada and elsewhere to conduct population surveys for Covid19 antibodies suggests a hidden agenda that would be hurt by evidence that the Covid19 epidemic will be self-limiting through the development of herd immunity, i.e., a sufficiently large proportion of the population with immunity that the number of people each infected person infects falls below 1.0, at which point the epidemic will die.
"I hope and pray people wise up to the dangers, even lethal dangers, of vaccines, especially poorly tested ones..."
Yes, it is a worrying possibility that in the present state of public ignorance cultivated by misleading statements by public officials, people will be bullied into compulsory vaccination, despite herd immunity having been achieved by the time a vaccine, whether effective or otherwise, is available. Indeed, there is room to question whether on purpose of the lock-down is to delay the acquisition of population immunity thus justifying vaccination.