gf beranek
Old Schooler
Wow!
Amazing story. Thanks.
Amazing story. Thanks.
Regarding Covid
- Thread starter cory
- Start date
- Replies 4K
- Views 110K
Mistakes have been made, no doubt.
I see nothing as serious toward
How would we "get over it" quickly? Jim and at least one other here have proven natural immunity is a myth by contracting it twice right?
What is an acceptable-to-you number of "collateral damage" deaths due to an overrun healthcare system?
The idea that any drug, including parasitical, aspirin, etc. can't be tampered with, controlled, be highly profitable to certain parties, etc. the way several folks here accuse the shots for the virus of being, is an exercise in showing a lack of wisdom, or judgment IMO. If there were really a "cure" that "they" didn't want you to have it would simply become unavailable, as would any of those who could produce it.
So do we put bio-suits, spacesuits, re-breathers, and small rooms all in the same "unhealthy" category as masks? We must have been killing many thousands over the years...where is the outrage?
I see nothing as serious toward
as what I witnessed done during the last administration and what I've seen the bankers do over several admins.
How would we "get over it" quickly? Jim and at least one other here have proven natural immunity is a myth by contracting it twice right?
What is an acceptable-to-you number of "collateral damage" deaths due to an overrun healthcare system?
The idea that any drug, including parasitical, aspirin, etc. can't be tampered with, controlled, be highly profitable to certain parties, etc. the way several folks here accuse the shots for the virus of being, is an exercise in showing a lack of wisdom, or judgment IMO. If there were really a "cure" that "they" didn't want you to have it would simply become unavailable, as would any of those who could produce it.
So do we put bio-suits, spacesuits, re-breathers, and small rooms all in the same "unhealthy" category as masks? We must have been killing many thousands over the years...where is the outrage?
Last edited:
Much my same point point.
Those who demand perfection from others, but take possibly coincidental singularities as gospel are barking up the wrong tree.
Though I believe the carrying of too much debt ruined more businesses than any actual legislation or regulations.
I'm not up on the "Hundreds of thousands" number as recorded fact. I suppose it's possible, but sounds high...haven't done the math. Shouldn't be too hard with the data available, but I won't waste my time on it.
Those who demand perfection from others, but take possibly coincidental singularities as gospel are barking up the wrong tree.
Though I believe the carrying of too much debt ruined more businesses than any actual legislation or regulations.
I'm not up on the "Hundreds of thousands" number as recorded fact. I suppose it's possible, but sounds high...haven't done the math. Shouldn't be too hard with the data available, but I won't waste my time on it.
murphy4trees
TreeHouser
yes... this refusal to give or even recommend ivermectin is medical mass murder. I heard that the hospitals get $20,000 if the patients follow the protocol that includes remdesivir, and if there is any deviation such as giving ivermectin the hospitals don't get the $20K. That is foul, though I have not confirmed that info is true.
And I heard from one of the frontline doctors that remdesivir causes kidney failure, which ends up filling the lungs with water, then the unknowing patient get put on a ventilator and they die. Not from covid, but from water on the lungs caused by kidney failure, but it looks like covid.
Why are we not hearing any questions from the press as to why the US has the highest death rate from Covid in the WORLD??? Something is very wrong here and the fox is guarding the hen house.
murphy4trees
TreeHouser
Not likely... the documented cases of re-infection that meet a scientific criteria are extremely rare.
Natural immunity has been found to be robust and long-lasting by several large studies...
How Likely Is Reinfection Following Covid Recovery? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if at all and based on typically a few instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection.
brownstone.org
I didn't say it had no impact.
Little businesses close all the time, mostly due to bad financial management or bad management in general. All the restrictions did was clear out the chaff IMO, resulting in more resilient, better run, more likely to succeed survivors.
I watched the home building industry go through the same thing, for different reasons in the past. In the long run most of us at the time thought it was better for the industry, although we went through some difficult times for a bit.
It's a jungle out there
Little businesses close all the time, mostly due to bad financial management or bad management in general. All the restrictions did was clear out the chaff IMO, resulting in more resilient, better run, more likely to succeed survivors.
I watched the home building industry go through the same thing, for different reasons in the past. In the long run most of us at the time thought it was better for the industry, although we went through some difficult times for a bit.
It's a jungle out there
Last edited:
murphy4trees
TreeHouser
Did you say you wanted science?
well, here's some science for ya.
Kulldorff & Bhattacharya Respond: The Collins and Fauci Attack on Traditional Public Health
Martin Kulldorff
Jay Bhattacharya
December 31, 2021 Updated: January 1, 2022
biggersmaller
Print
Commentary
On Oct. 4, 2020, with Prof. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). Our purpose was to express our grave concerns over the inadequate protection of the vulnerable and the devastating harms of the lockdown pandemic policy adopted by much of the world; We proposed an alternative strategy of focused protection.
The key scientific fact on which the GBD was based—a more than thousand-fold higher risk of death for the old compared to the young—meant that better protection of the old would minimize COVID deaths. At the same time, opening schools and lifting lockdowns would reduce the collateral harm to the rest of the population.
The Declaration received enormous support, ultimately attracting signatures from over 50,000 scientists and medical professionals and over 800,000 members of the public. Our hope in writing was two-fold. First, we wanted to help the public understand that—contrary to the prevailing narrative—there was no scientific consensus in favor of lockdown. In this, we succeeded.
Second, we wanted to spur a discussion among public health scientists about how to better protect the vulnerable, both those living in nursing homes (where ~40 percent of all COVID deaths have occurred) and those living in the community. We provided specific proposals for focused protection in the GBD and supporting documents to spur the discussion. Though some in public health did engage civilly in productive discussions with us, in this aim we had limited success.
Unbeknownst to us, our call for a more focused pandemic strategy posed a political problem for Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The former is a geneticist who, until last week, was the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH); the latter is an immunologist who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). They are the biggest funders of medical and infectious disease research worldwide.
Collins and Fauci played critical roles in designing and advocating for the pandemic lockdown strategy adopted by the United States and many other countries. In emails written four days after the Great Barrington Declaration and disclosed recently after a FOIA request, it was revealed that the two conspired to undermine the Declaration. Rather than engaging in scientific discourse, they authorized “a quick and devastating published takedown” of this proposal, which they characterized as by “three fringe epidemiologists” from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.
Across the pond, they were joined by their close colleague, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest non-governmental funders of medical research. He worked with Dominic Cummings, the political strategist of UK prime minister Boris Johnson. Together, they orchestrated “an aggressive press campaign against those behind the Great Barrington Declaration and others opposed to blanket COVID-19 restrictions.”
Ignoring the call for focused protection of the vulnerable, Collins and Fauci purposely mischaracterized the GBDl as a “let-it-rip” “herd immunity strategy,” even though focused protection is the very opposite of a let-it-rip strategy. It is more appropriate to call the lockdown strategy that has been followed a “let-it-rip” strategy. Without focused protection, every age group will eventually be exposed in equal proportion, albeit at a prolonged “let-it-drip” pace compared to a do-nothing strategy.
When journalists started asking us why we wanted to “let the virus rip,” we were puzzled. Those words are not in the GBD, and they are contrary to the central idea of focused protection. It is unclear whether Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD, whether they deliberately mischaracterized it, or whether their understanding of epidemiology and public health is more limited than we had thought. In any case, it was a lie.
We were also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD as a “herd immunity strategy.” Herd immunity is a scientifically proven phenomenon, as fundamental in infectious disease epidemiology as gravity is in physics. Every COVID strategy leads to herd immunity, and the pandemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity through either COVID-recovery or a vaccine. It makes as much sense to claim that an epidemiologist is advocating for a “herd immunity strategy” as it does to claim that a pilot is advocating a “gravity strategy” when landing an airplane. The issue is how to land the plane safely, and whatever strategy the pilot uses, gravity ensures that the plane will eventually return to earth.
The fundamental goal of the GBD is to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm to the public’s health. Health, of course, is broader than just COVID. Any reasonable evaluation of lockdowns should consider their collateral damage to patients with cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, other infectious diseases, as well as mental health, and much else. Based on long-standing principles of public health, the GBD and focused protection of the high-risk population is a middle ground between devastating lockdowns and a do-nothing let-it rip strategy.
Collins and Fauci surprisingly claimed that focused protection of the old is impossible without a vaccine. Scientists have their own specialties, but not every scientist has deep expertise in public health. The natural approach would have been to engage with epidemiologists and public health scientists for whom this is their bread and butter. Had they done so, Collins and Fauci would have learned that public health is fundamentally about focused protection.
It is impossible to shut down society completely. Lockdowns protected young low-risk affluent work-from-home professionals, such as administrators, scientists, professors, journalists, and lawyers, while older high-risk members of the working class were exposed and died in necessarily high numbers. This failure to understand that lockdowns could not protect the vulnerable led to the tragically high death counts from COVID.
We do not know why Collins and Fauci decided to do a “take down” rather than use their esteemed positions to build and promote vigorous scientific discussions on these critical issues, engaging scientists with different expertise and perspectives. Part of the answer may lie in another puzzle—their blindness to the devastating effects of lockdowns on other public health outcomes.
Lockdown harms have affected everyone, with an extra heavy burden on the chronically ill; on children, for whom schools were closed; on the working class, especially those in the densely populated inner cities; and on the global poor, with tens of millions suffering from malnutrition and starvation. For example, Fauci was a major advocate for school closures. These are now widely recognized as an enormous mistake that harmed children without affecting disease spread. In the coming years, we must work hard to reverse the damage caused by our misguided pandemic strategy.
While tens of thousands of scientists and medical professionals signed the Great Barrington Declaration, why didn’t more speak up in the media? Some did, some tried but failed, while others were very cautious about doing so. When we wrote the Declaration, we knew that we were putting our professional careers at risk, as well as our ability to provide for our families. That was a conscious decision on our part, and we fully sympathize with people who instead decided to focus on maintaining their important research laboratories and activities.
Scientists will naturally hesitate before putting themselves in a situation where the NIH Director, with an annual scientific research budget of $42.9 billion, wants to take them down. It may also be unwise to upset the director of NIAID, with an annual budget of $6.1 billion for infectious disease research, or the director of the Wellcome Trust, with an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Sitting atop powerful funding agencies, Collins, Fauci, and Farrar channel research dollars to nearly every infectious disease epidemiologist, immunologist, and virologist of note in the United States and UK.
Collins, Fauci, and Farrar got the pandemic strategy they advocated for, and they own the results together with other lockdown proponents. The GBD was and is inconvenient for them because it stands as clear evidence that a better, less deadly alternative was available.
We now have over 800,000 COVID deaths in the United States, plus the collateral damage. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries—less focused on lockdowns and more focused on protecting the old—have had fewer COVID deaths per population than the United States, the UK, and most other European countries. Florida, which avoided much of the collateral lockdown harms, currently ranks 22nd best in the United States in age-adjusted COVID mortality.
In academic medicine, landing an NIH grant makes or breaks careers, so scientists have a strong incentive to stay on the right side of NIH and NIAID priorities. If we want scientists to speak freely in the future, we should avoid having the same people in charge of public health policy and medical research funding.
well, here's some science for ya.
Kulldorff & Bhattacharya Respond: The Collins and Fauci Attack on Traditional Public Health
Martin Kulldorff
Jay Bhattacharya
December 31, 2021 Updated: January 1, 2022
biggersmaller
Commentary
On Oct. 4, 2020, with Prof. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). Our purpose was to express our grave concerns over the inadequate protection of the vulnerable and the devastating harms of the lockdown pandemic policy adopted by much of the world; We proposed an alternative strategy of focused protection.
The key scientific fact on which the GBD was based—a more than thousand-fold higher risk of death for the old compared to the young—meant that better protection of the old would minimize COVID deaths. At the same time, opening schools and lifting lockdowns would reduce the collateral harm to the rest of the population.
The Declaration received enormous support, ultimately attracting signatures from over 50,000 scientists and medical professionals and over 800,000 members of the public. Our hope in writing was two-fold. First, we wanted to help the public understand that—contrary to the prevailing narrative—there was no scientific consensus in favor of lockdown. In this, we succeeded.
Second, we wanted to spur a discussion among public health scientists about how to better protect the vulnerable, both those living in nursing homes (where ~40 percent of all COVID deaths have occurred) and those living in the community. We provided specific proposals for focused protection in the GBD and supporting documents to spur the discussion. Though some in public health did engage civilly in productive discussions with us, in this aim we had limited success.
Unbeknownst to us, our call for a more focused pandemic strategy posed a political problem for Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The former is a geneticist who, until last week, was the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH); the latter is an immunologist who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). They are the biggest funders of medical and infectious disease research worldwide.
Collins and Fauci played critical roles in designing and advocating for the pandemic lockdown strategy adopted by the United States and many other countries. In emails written four days after the Great Barrington Declaration and disclosed recently after a FOIA request, it was revealed that the two conspired to undermine the Declaration. Rather than engaging in scientific discourse, they authorized “a quick and devastating published takedown” of this proposal, which they characterized as by “three fringe epidemiologists” from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.
Across the pond, they were joined by their close colleague, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest non-governmental funders of medical research. He worked with Dominic Cummings, the political strategist of UK prime minister Boris Johnson. Together, they orchestrated “an aggressive press campaign against those behind the Great Barrington Declaration and others opposed to blanket COVID-19 restrictions.”
Ignoring the call for focused protection of the vulnerable, Collins and Fauci purposely mischaracterized the GBDl as a “let-it-rip” “herd immunity strategy,” even though focused protection is the very opposite of a let-it-rip strategy. It is more appropriate to call the lockdown strategy that has been followed a “let-it-rip” strategy. Without focused protection, every age group will eventually be exposed in equal proportion, albeit at a prolonged “let-it-drip” pace compared to a do-nothing strategy.
When journalists started asking us why we wanted to “let the virus rip,” we were puzzled. Those words are not in the GBD, and they are contrary to the central idea of focused protection. It is unclear whether Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD, whether they deliberately mischaracterized it, or whether their understanding of epidemiology and public health is more limited than we had thought. In any case, it was a lie.
We were also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD as a “herd immunity strategy.” Herd immunity is a scientifically proven phenomenon, as fundamental in infectious disease epidemiology as gravity is in physics. Every COVID strategy leads to herd immunity, and the pandemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity through either COVID-recovery or a vaccine. It makes as much sense to claim that an epidemiologist is advocating for a “herd immunity strategy” as it does to claim that a pilot is advocating a “gravity strategy” when landing an airplane. The issue is how to land the plane safely, and whatever strategy the pilot uses, gravity ensures that the plane will eventually return to earth.
The fundamental goal of the GBD is to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm to the public’s health. Health, of course, is broader than just COVID. Any reasonable evaluation of lockdowns should consider their collateral damage to patients with cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, other infectious diseases, as well as mental health, and much else. Based on long-standing principles of public health, the GBD and focused protection of the high-risk population is a middle ground between devastating lockdowns and a do-nothing let-it rip strategy.
Collins and Fauci surprisingly claimed that focused protection of the old is impossible without a vaccine. Scientists have their own specialties, but not every scientist has deep expertise in public health. The natural approach would have been to engage with epidemiologists and public health scientists for whom this is their bread and butter. Had they done so, Collins and Fauci would have learned that public health is fundamentally about focused protection.
It is impossible to shut down society completely. Lockdowns protected young low-risk affluent work-from-home professionals, such as administrators, scientists, professors, journalists, and lawyers, while older high-risk members of the working class were exposed and died in necessarily high numbers. This failure to understand that lockdowns could not protect the vulnerable led to the tragically high death counts from COVID.
We do not know why Collins and Fauci decided to do a “take down” rather than use their esteemed positions to build and promote vigorous scientific discussions on these critical issues, engaging scientists with different expertise and perspectives. Part of the answer may lie in another puzzle—their blindness to the devastating effects of lockdowns on other public health outcomes.
Lockdown harms have affected everyone, with an extra heavy burden on the chronically ill; on children, for whom schools were closed; on the working class, especially those in the densely populated inner cities; and on the global poor, with tens of millions suffering from malnutrition and starvation. For example, Fauci was a major advocate for school closures. These are now widely recognized as an enormous mistake that harmed children without affecting disease spread. In the coming years, we must work hard to reverse the damage caused by our misguided pandemic strategy.
While tens of thousands of scientists and medical professionals signed the Great Barrington Declaration, why didn’t more speak up in the media? Some did, some tried but failed, while others were very cautious about doing so. When we wrote the Declaration, we knew that we were putting our professional careers at risk, as well as our ability to provide for our families. That was a conscious decision on our part, and we fully sympathize with people who instead decided to focus on maintaining their important research laboratories and activities.
Scientists will naturally hesitate before putting themselves in a situation where the NIH Director, with an annual scientific research budget of $42.9 billion, wants to take them down. It may also be unwise to upset the director of NIAID, with an annual budget of $6.1 billion for infectious disease research, or the director of the Wellcome Trust, with an annual budget of $1.5 billion. Sitting atop powerful funding agencies, Collins, Fauci, and Farrar channel research dollars to nearly every infectious disease epidemiologist, immunologist, and virologist of note in the United States and UK.
Collins, Fauci, and Farrar got the pandemic strategy they advocated for, and they own the results together with other lockdown proponents. The GBD was and is inconvenient for them because it stands as clear evidence that a better, less deadly alternative was available.
We now have over 800,000 COVID deaths in the United States, plus the collateral damage. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries—less focused on lockdowns and more focused on protecting the old—have had fewer COVID deaths per population than the United States, the UK, and most other European countries. Florida, which avoided much of the collateral lockdown harms, currently ranks 22nd best in the United States in age-adjusted COVID mortality.
In academic medicine, landing an NIH grant makes or breaks careers, so scientists have a strong incentive to stay on the right side of NIH and NIAID priorities. If we want scientists to speak freely in the future, we should avoid having the same people in charge of public health policy and medical research funding.
murphy4trees
TreeHouser
I didn't say it had no impact.
Little businesses close all the time, mostly due to bad financial management or bad management in general. All the restrictions did was clear out the chaff IMO, resulting in more resilient, better run, more likely to succeed survivors.
I watched the home building industry go through the same thing, for different reasons in the past. I the long run most of us at the time thought it was better for the industry, although we went through some difficult times for a bit.
It's a jungle out there
I generally like your contributions and appreciate any dedicated musician, but I think you've come off the rails here bro.
You wrote "disproves the myth of natural immunity". Nothing of the sort is even close to reality... Natural immunity is well established, long-lasting and robust. Many of the cases claimed to be re-infection were mis-identified or resulted from false positives in PCR testing.
and then you said lockdowns just clear out the chaff ... that's pretty cold when the lockdowns are a boon for Besos and his ilk ( the wealth of billionaires doubled in 18 months while 150 million families ended up losing their homes.
Burnham
Woods walker
People are ever more crazy, it seems.
Carry on, you folk who deny science, as I nor anyone else will ever change your minds...but it makes me cry to watch. The sad thing is, you are causing deep suffering and even deaths that do not have to happen.
Carry on, you folk who deny science, as I nor anyone else will ever change your minds...but it makes me cry to watch. The sad thing is, you are causing deep suffering and even deaths that do not have to happen.
Last edited:
Thank you for your permission to "deny science"
That's a pretty high horse you are riding.
I am just sorry that Covid has so greatly polarized and divided our countries, including this internet forum.
gf beranek
Old Schooler
In the meantime...
Seems to me it's the doctors n scientists shaming their own profession, by denying that healthy folks can contract Covid n recover from it normally because of their immune system functioning properly.
Why they refuse to acknowledge that fact's the mystery.......
Jomo
Why they refuse to acknowledge that fact's the mystery.......
Jomo
Cobleskill
Treehouser
But lots of healthy people die from it.
So, a bunch of Dutch morons running amok is supposed to tell us what, Jerry?
They have worse riots from soccer hooligans!
Here in Denmark, the so called " men in black" demonstrating against the rules infringing on their "freedom" from Covid restrictions turned out to be exactly that.
Soccer hooligans, who needed something else to cause trouble about, when sports were banned.
Funnily enough, they all drove on the right side of the road, getting to the demonstration.
Guess that rule isn't an example of the dictatorship and Murphy's lizard people trying to take their freedom away.
Come on now, protesters, stand up for your sacred right to do whateverthefuckyouwant and meet a 16 wheeler head on on the freeway.
What a glorious death.
Last edited:
vharrison
Island Girl
Yippie, Stig is back!!!!!!!!!
No_Bivy
Treehouser
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,447
I could give a shit anymore. People's minds are made up.
Healthy people can survive covid. The problem is we all don't know if we are susceptible until it happens, like clotting problems.
put a 34yo in a bag yesterday from a massive PE, unvaccinated, caught it from her teenage daughter. Not obese, but a smoker. Not sure why she developed a massive clot.
hard to base any BS vid of people protesting. Can tell what's real or fake from that.....plus it sure looks like it looping at points.
welcome back Stig.
Healthy people can survive covid. The problem is we all don't know if we are susceptible until it happens, like clotting problems.
put a 34yo in a bag yesterday from a massive PE, unvaccinated, caught it from her teenage daughter. Not obese, but a smoker. Not sure why she developed a massive clot.
hard to base any BS vid of people protesting. Can tell what's real or fake from that.....plus it sure looks like it looping at points.
welcome back Stig.
Cobleskill
Treehouser
Covid was the leading cause of death of 45-54 year olds in US in October. 3rd leading cause of death in November, after heart disease and cancer. No vaccines available for those yet.
pantheraba
More biners!!!
IDGAF here, too. But, if folks don't get vaxxed and then get covid anyway, seems they should just tough it out at home...don't use up hospital/ICU beds. My 78-year-old widow neighbor across the street went to the hospital at 6AM this morning. I heard the engines of the FD vehicles outside at my driveway..thought it was a trash pickup. Then I saw the vehicle was backed into Martha's driveway. I watched them roll her out on the stretcher, upright like she usually is when they have to get her. She has COPD and several times a year needs help. She is severely arthritic, COPD and generous to a fault...kind of like a Betty White person. I got word about 8AM today she is covid positive. Probably her 13 YO grandson that she raises is positive, too...he has had a headache all week. They all did a big Christmas family thing this year.
She has 2 worthless family members that are squatting in her place right now...drug idjits. She told them to leave but they are worthless and it will take the law to get them out.
Most of the folks in hospitals these days are unvaccinated...they took their chances with covid and then panicked when they could not breathe and went to the hospital anyway. Just like my friend, Greg...he got clots after he was admitted for covid pneumonia. He didn't believe the vaccine could help him...he was afraid of getting clots from the vaccine. He spent 5 weeks on a ventilator while they treated the clots in his body. They already amputated the right leg above the knee...he may still lose toes on the left foot. Oh...and his left arm and hand have been swelling. He took his chances being unvaxxed and the complications are catastrophic. He very likely could have avoided hospitalization had he planned otherwise.
Anyway, you folks that decide to take your chances with covid...go for it. I'll be curious to see how the resolve holds up when you feel like you are suffocating as the inflammation drowns your lungs...or when your unvaxxed family members are struggling to stay alive. In case you have not almost drowned before...it's not good. Carry on.
She has 2 worthless family members that are squatting in her place right now...drug idjits. She told them to leave but they are worthless and it will take the law to get them out.
Most of the folks in hospitals these days are unvaccinated...they took their chances with covid and then panicked when they could not breathe and went to the hospital anyway. Just like my friend, Greg...he got clots after he was admitted for covid pneumonia. He didn't believe the vaccine could help him...he was afraid of getting clots from the vaccine. He spent 5 weeks on a ventilator while they treated the clots in his body. They already amputated the right leg above the knee...he may still lose toes on the left foot. Oh...and his left arm and hand have been swelling. He took his chances being unvaxxed and the complications are catastrophic. He very likely could have avoided hospitalization had he planned otherwise.
Anyway, you folks that decide to take your chances with covid...go for it. I'll be curious to see how the resolve holds up when you feel like you are suffocating as the inflammation drowns your lungs...or when your unvaxxed family members are struggling to stay alive. In case you have not almost drowned before...it's not good. Carry on.
No_Bivy
Treehouser
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,447
I guess if I saw real-time data other than BS posted online I would sway my opinion,.......but what I see is mostly the opposite of what the anti camp states.
People I work with have had covid after shots, mild like a cold. Haven't seen any unvacc with mild symptoms because they don't come to the hospital.
if this shit was like ebola people might feel different.
I can only bear witness to what I see going on the front line. I'm sure thousands survive without vaccines. Maybe those folks should donate plasma for a good cause.
People I work with have had covid after shots, mild like a cold. Haven't seen any unvacc with mild symptoms because they don't come to the hospital.
if this shit was like ebola people might feel different.
I can only bear witness to what I see going on the front line. I'm sure thousands survive without vaccines. Maybe those folks should donate plasma for a good cause.
Burnham
Woods walker
I am sure that nothing I say can change anyone's mind on this subject. Sorry I offered my opinion; that was a waste of forum space.
Burnham
Woods walker
You did, and I declined...sincerely...
Best wishes, Scott.
Best wishes, Scott.
Similar threads
