Covid 19 virus plus vaccine was meant to kill us.

[Corn Pop]

One dude because the States locked the doors on him to visit his Dad who he called his best friend who was dying and was in his last few week denied. A Son who wanted to visit his Dad before he died and was refused in the name of saving lives. Not only was he not allowed to visit his father befote he died, he wore a suit and tie and watch the funeral from his home through a video. That is harsh treatment.

There were many failures and in the compassionate exemption pathways, leaving many unable to visit dying family members or return home in their time of need.

 

[Corn Pop]

People having to ask the goverment for permission to be allowed to visit there own family within there own country.

 

[Barbarian]

You say that people died of COVID, surely someone me died, but the number of those who died in world scale is nothing to number of those who did not die, in other words there was no pandemic if we talk numbers. They destroyed businesses and economy of many countries, think, and discern. What are the reasons to do all of that.

More than one person in 330 died of COVID-19 in America. By 2022, about 77% of Americans had a COVID-19 infection. When is the last time a pandemic here had a frequency and mortality like that?

 

[Barbarian]

It doesn't help if they just make up the rules , "Six foot Safe " no science for it .

Distance mattered. Because the virus spread in exhaled droplets, close proximity greatly increased the risk. But the risk didn't entirely go away at six feet.

 

[hawkman]

Distance mattered. Because the virus spread in exhaled droplets, close proximity greatly increased the risk. But the risk didn't entirely go away at six feet.

The 6 feet was NOT scientifically studied and yet it was enforced as if it was a gold standard of some kind .

6 feet was not scientifically studied at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Barbarian]

Except there was no death vaccine. As I stated earlier, if this was an attempt at population control by killing people, it was a very poor attempt that could have been done much better through other viruses.

Yes. One could hardly have designed a less efficient biological weapon.

The 6 feet was NOT scientifically studied and yet it was enforced as if it was a gold standard of some kind .

It was, eventually, but the virus appeared first. That's how this sort of thing works. You use past knowledge to do the best thing possible. Eventually, we learned that it also transmits via aerosols...

It takes ten paragraphs before the Post provides a straightforward answer: "Experts agree that social distancing saved lives." The question, it turns out, is only about whether six feet was really the right social distance. WHO said that three feet was enough, and Fauci and others have already testified that they don't really know where six feet came from. Apparently it was partly based on our old friend, droplet vs. aerosol emission. Six feet is a safer distance for droplet transmission, so the CDC initially adopted it because they thought COVID was spread via droplets. As we all know by now, that was wrong. COVID is spread mostly by airborne aerosols, and for that six feet doesn't do any more good than three feet.

The rise and fall of the six-foot rule - Kevin Drum

Is my memory shot? The Washington Post has a piece today about social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether it was really necessary. This is apparently going to be a key point in tomorrow's congressional hearings featuring Anthony Fauci. It takes ten paragraphs before the Post...

jabberwocking.com

There are two major misconceptions people have about scientists. The first is that we know everything. The second is that we don't know anything. It's always somewhere in-between. The rule saved lives. It was the best we could get, until we had more data on the virus and how it was transmitted.

And that's why Fauci did the right thing. He did made the right decision with the information we had at the time.

 

[Corn Pop]

When I visit a doctor i like to see all there qualifications hanging on the wall, not a pardon.

 

[Corn Pop]

There are two major misconceptions people have about scientists. The first is that we know everything. The second is that we don't know anything. It's always somewhere in-between. The rule saved lives. It was the best we could get, until we had more data on the virus and how it was transmitted.

I always thought a part of science was all about questioning the science, yet at that time anyone who dared question the science on any mandates or the jab they didn't seem to like it very much because they didn't have much to go on at that time, I mean it was even admitted the jab was never tested for transmission, and as some governing authorities even admitted after when it come to some of the mandates they had they just "went with it". So people were expected to just do and don't ask questions.

 

[Barbarian]

I always thought a part of science was all about questioning the science, yet at that time anyone who dared question the science on any mandates or the jab they didn't seem to like it very much because they didn't have much to go on at that time,

If you think so, you weren't reading the scientific and medical literature. Early on, there was a lot of debate until the results of research came in. Would you like some examples?

I mean it was even admitted the jab was never tested for transmission

Yeah, it was designed to prevent serious illness and death. The reduction in transmission was an extra.

So people were expected to just do and don't ask questions.

CDC invited comments. And they told people to discuss it with their physicians. C'mon.

 

[Barbarian]

When I visit a doctor i like to see all there qualifications hanging on the wall, not a pardon.

Dr. Fauci has an extraordinary record as a physician. He was still seeing patients in spite of his position, because he felt it necessary to keep his perspective.

As I said, he did the right thing with the evidence we had at the time. And he changed policies as new data indicated. Well done, Dr. Fauci.

 

[Corn Pop]

It takes ten paragraphs before the Post provides a straightforward answer: "Experts agree that social distancing saved lives." The question, it turns out, is only about whether six feet was really the right social distance. WHO said that three feet was enough, and Fauci and others have already testified that they don't really know where six feet came from. Apparently it was partly based on our old friend, droplet vs. aerosol emission. Six feet is a safer distance for droplet transmission, so the CDC initially adopted it because they thought COVID was spread via droplets. As we all know by now, that was wrong. COVID is spread mostly by airborne aerosols, and for that six feet doesn't do any more good than three feet.

The rise and fall of the six-foot rule - Kevin Drum

Is my memory shot? The Washington Post has a piece today about social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether it was really necessary. This is apparently going to be a key point in tomorrow's congressional hearings featuring Anthony Fauci. It takes ten paragraphs before the Post...

jabberwocking.com

The question is only about whether six foot was really the right social distance?.

It was a bit more than just 6 foot for many people and places.

3ft or 6ft is one thing, but many were locked down inside there houses unless it was essential foot long, and no one was allowed to visit others and family and friends foot long, or go for a walk in the park foot long. That is a bit longer than 6 foot. It was stay home saves lives and no gatherings and forcing businesses to close foot long.

 

[Barbarian]

The question is only about whether six foot was really the right social distance?.

Did it protect people? Yes, it did. Was it as good as we expected, using data from similar viruses? No. But it saved lives. We know this because we can compare deaths in states with such distancing, compared to states that did not do it. Here's a pretty good summary:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/21/g-s1-5705/coronavirus-faw-if-youre-still-trying-to-stay-covid-safe-does-the-6-food-rule-matter

It also had another benefit. The rule were really effective against influenza virus, and deaths from influenza were dramatically down in the pandemic years.

It was a bit more than just 6 foot for many people and places.

3ft or 6ft is one thing, but many were locked down inside there houses unless it was essential foot long, and no one was allowed to visit others and family and friends foot long, or go for a walk in the park foot long. That is a bit longer than 6 foot. It was stay home saves lives and no gatherings and forcing businesses to close foot long.

Don't remember that, but those who avoided crowds were a lot less likely to die than those who attended crowd events. Each state did their own thing. How did that work out? (Barbarian checks)

Methods​

Using social distancing data from tracked mobile phones in all US counties, we estimated the relationship between social distancing (average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020) and COVID-19 mortality (when the state in which the county is located reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19 and up to May 31, 2020) with a mixed-effects negative binomial model while distinguishing COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths and accounting for social distancing– and COVID-19–related factors (including the period between the report of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 and May 31, 2020; population density; social vulnerability; and hospital resource availability). Results from the mixed-effects negative binomial model were then used to generate marginal effects at the mean, which helped separate the influence of social distancing on COVID-19 deaths from other covariates while calculating COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people.

Results​

We observed that a 1% increase in average mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020 led to a significant increase in COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 1.18 (P<.001), while every 1% increase in the average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home in February 2020 was found to significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 0.90 (P<.001).

The Influence of Social Distancing on COVID-19 Mortality in US Counties: Cross-sectional Study - PMC

Previous studies on the impact of social distancing on COVID-19 mortality in the United States have predominantly examined this relationship at the national level and have not separated COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths​

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(7):e242006. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006

Findings This cross-sectional analysis including all 50 US states plus the District of Columbia found that if all states had imposed COVID-19 restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most (least) restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower (13%-17% higher) than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year period analyzed. Behavior changes were associated with 49% to 79% of this overall difference.

Meaning These findings indicate that collectively, stringent COVID-19 restrictions were associated with substantial decreases in excess deaths during the pandemic.

That's up to 240,000 lives saved. Would that justify tighter restrictions on social interaction?

 

[follower]

Yes, evil men ran things.

 

[JLB]

Did it protect people? Yes, it did. Was it as good as we expected, using data from similar viruses? No. But it saved lives. We know this because we can compare deaths in states with such distancing, compared to states that did not do it. Here's a pretty good summary:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/21/g-s1-5705/coronavirus-faw-if-youre-still-trying-to-stay-covid-safe-does-the-6-food-rule-matter

It also had another benefit. The rule were really effective against influenza virus, and deaths from influenza were dramatically down in the pandemic years.

Don't remember that, but those who avoided crowds were a lot less likely to die than those who attended crowd events. Each state did their own thing. How did that work out? (Barbarian checks)

Methods​

Using social distancing data from tracked mobile phones in all US counties, we estimated the relationship between social distancing (average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020) and COVID-19 mortality (when the state in which the county is located reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19 and up to May 31, 2020) with a mixed-effects negative binomial model while distinguishing COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths and accounting for social distancing– and COVID-19–related factors (including the period between the report of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 and May 31, 2020; population density; social vulnerability; and hospital resource availability). Results from the mixed-effects negative binomial model were then used to generate marginal effects at the mean, which helped separate the influence of social distancing on COVID-19 deaths from other covariates while calculating COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people.

Results​

We observed that a 1% increase in average mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020 led to a significant increase in COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 1.18 (P<.001), while every 1% increase in the average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home in February 2020 was found to significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 0.90 (P<.001).

The Influence of Social Distancing on COVID-19 Mortality in US Counties: Cross-sectional Study - PMC

Previous studies on the impact of social distancing on COVID-19 mortality in the United States have predominantly examined this relationship at the national level and have not separated COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths​

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(7):e242006. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006

Findings This cross-sectional analysis including all 50 US states plus the District of Columbia found that if all states had imposed COVID-19 restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most (least) restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower (13%-17% higher) than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year period analyzed. Behavior changes were associated with 49% to 79% of this overall difference.

Meaning These findings indicate that collectively, stringent COVID-19 restrictions were associated with substantial decreases in excess deaths during the pandemic.

That's up to 240,000 lives saved. Would that justify tighter restrictions on social interaction?

You don’t understand the chart put out by the CDC.

July 2023

The Gold represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with booster - 38% of the deaths were those who were vaccinated with booster.

The Green represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with primary series of Covid vaccines. 23%
That’s 23% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated with the primary series of the Covid vaccines.

Totalling 61% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated.

As the article reads 6 out of 10.

What wasn’t taken into consideration is all the “sudden deaths” that occurred from people taking the Vaccine.

Tens of Millions of innocent people who were not sick, and who trusted the main stream media and politicians to give them good medical advice were killed because the Vaccine was the disease.

The vaccine killed many more than the disease.

Figure 1


Share of COVID-19 Deaths by Vaccination Status, 30 Jurisdictions In the U.S., September 2021 To August 2022, Age 18 and Over


All adults | Adults age 50 and older \ Elderly ages 65 and older


Unvaccinated Vaccinated with primary series


Vaccinated with booster


Sep '21


Oct '21


Nov '21 Dec'21


Jan '22


Feb '22


Mar '22


Apr '22


May '22


Jun '22


Jul '22


77%


75%


72%


70%


59%


61%


57%


41%


38%


38%


39%


22%


24%


26%


24%


Accept


5%


29%


25%


12%


15%


23%


20%


23%


24%


23%


23%


36%


38%


38%


38%

 

[Corn Pop]

Did it protect people? Yes, it did. Was it as good as we expected, using data from similar viruses? No. But it saved lives. We know this because we can compare deaths in states with such distancing, compared to states that did not do it. Here's a pretty good summary:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/21/g-s1-5705/coronavirus-faw-if-youre-still-trying-to-stay-covid-safe-does-the-6-food-rule-matter

It also had another benefit. The rule were really effective against influenza virus, and deaths from influenza were dramatically down in the pandemic years.

Don't remember that, but those who avoided crowds were a lot less likely to die than those who attended crowd events. Each state did their own thing. How did that work out? (Barbarian checks)

Methods​

Using social distancing data from tracked mobile phones in all US counties, we estimated the relationship between social distancing (average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020) and COVID-19 mortality (when the state in which the county is located reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19 and up to May 31, 2020) with a mixed-effects negative binomial model while distinguishing COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths and accounting for social distancing– and COVID-19–related factors (including the period between the report of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 and May 31, 2020; population density; social vulnerability; and hospital resource availability). Results from the mixed-effects negative binomial model were then used to generate marginal effects at the mean, which helped separate the influence of social distancing on COVID-19 deaths from other covariates while calculating COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people.

Results​

We observed that a 1% increase in average mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020 led to a significant increase in COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 1.18 (P<.001), while every 1% increase in the average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home in February 2020 was found to significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 0.90 (P<.001).

The Influence of Social Distancing on COVID-19 Mortality in US Counties: Cross-sectional Study - PMC

Previous studies on the impact of social distancing on COVID-19 mortality in the United States have predominantly examined this relationship at the national level and have not separated COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths​

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(7):e242006. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006

Findings This cross-sectional analysis including all 50 US states plus the District of Columbia found that if all states had imposed COVID-19 restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most (least) restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower (13%-17% higher) than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year period analyzed. Behavior changes were associated with 49% to 79% of this overall difference.

Meaning These findings indicate that collectively, stringent COVID-19 restrictions were associated with substantial decreases in excess deaths during the pandemic.

That's up to 240,000 lives saved. Would that justify tighter restrictions on social interaction?

Im wondering why those who praised social distancing, masks, lockdowns, the jab and so on, why they gave up?. I mean the flu and cov and all the others are still around, I mean vulnerable people are still being hospitalised and dying but no one seems to worry about it much anymore even they said 1 hospitalisation and death is 1 too many. Most of the self righteous gave up after 1 or 2 jabs and they not wearing masks or social distancing anymore.

 

[Barbarian]

Im wondering why those who praised social distancing, masks, lockdowns, the jab and so on, why they gave up?.

Vaccination made it much less dangerous to be exposed, for example. Vaccinated people are much less likely to be seriously ill or to die of COVID-19.

Which seems like a pretty good thing to me.

 

[Barbarian]

You don’t understand the chart put out by the CDC.

If you understood it, you would surely not have posted it here to undercut your beliefs.
By the end of 2022, about 80 percent of the U.S. population was vaccinated.
Yet about 40% of the deaths from COVID-19 were unvaccinated people.
If the vaccine did nothing at all, one would expect that only 20% of the deaths would be to unvaccinated people.
So we see that unvaccinated people were at least twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than vaccinated people.
By your own data.

What wasn’t taken into consideration is all the “sudden deaths” that occurred from people taking the Vaccine.

Show us your numbers on that. You were suckered by the guys who told you the VAERS database was an accurate count.

The vaccine killed many more than the disease.

The disease killed about 1.2 million Americans. Show us how many people were proven to have died from the vaccine. Did you really believe that story?

Here's the facts you deleted from the article you cited:

"we still see that unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of death and other severe outcomes than people the same age who have stayed up-to-date on boosters. Older people are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than younger people, but vaccines and boosters still lower that risk substantially."

 

[JLB]

If you understood it, you would surely not have posted it here to undercut your beliefs.
By the end of 2022, about 80 percent of the U.S. population was vaccinated.
Yet about 40% of the deaths from COVID-19 were unvaccinated people.
If the vaccine did nothing at all, one would expect that only 20% of the deaths would be to unvaccinated people.
So we see that unvaccinated people were at least twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than vaccinated people.
By your own data.


Show us your numbers on that. You were suckered by the guys who told you the VAERS database was an accurate count.


The disease killed about 1.2 million Americans. Show us how many people were proven to have died from the vaccine. Did you really believe that story?

Here's the facts you deleted from the article you cited:

"we still see that unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of death and other severe outcomes than people the same age who have stayed up-to-date on boosters. Older people are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than younger people, but vaccines and boosters still lower that risk substantially."

CDC facts.


The Gold represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with booster - 38% of the deaths were those who were vaccinated with booster.

The Green represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with primary series of Covid vaccines. 23%
That’s 23% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated with the primary series of the Covid vaccines.

Totalling 61% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated.

As the article reads 6 out of 10.

What wasn’t taken into consideration is all the “sudden deaths” that occurred from people taking the Vaccine.

Tens of Millions of innocent people who were not sick, and who trusted the main stream media and politicians to give them good medical advice were killed because the Vaccine was the disease.

The vaccine killed many more than the disease.

 

[follower]

Now this should be the story of the century , something that everyone should be talking about , it's not every day that Governments collude together to murder their citizens.

Historically it has been quite common. Unexpected maybe, but happens often in this world of sin. On this the Bible testified.

But something strange is happening , if you mention it to a vaccinated person they call you a conspiracy theorist , or they change the subject or just tell you their not interested in talking about.

Those who go along with the evil world are evil themselves and do not want their evil deeds exposed either.

 

[Free]

CDC facts.


The Gold represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with booster - 38% of the deaths were those who were vaccinated with booster.

The Green represents Covid deaths who are vaccinated with primary series of Covid vaccines. 23%
That’s 23% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated with the primary series of the Covid vaccines.

Totalling 61% of Covid deaths were attributed to those who were vaccinated.

As the article reads 6 out of 10.

Which are you referencing? You talk about an article but post no link to one. Not that it matters, since it is you simply do not understand the data, despite this having been dealt with many times, such as HERE. I've pointed out to you previously that this is the base rate fallacy--HERE, for instance--which I already mentioned earlier in THIS thread. You would do well to learn this once and for all.

What matters is the percentage of the population that were vaccinated versus those unvaccinated. I'm certain that the previous numbers I provided are still in the ballpark: the unvaxxed were 3-4 times more likely to die from COVID, more likely to get COVID, more likely to be hospitalized, and much more likely to be in the ICU.

What wasn’t taken into consideration is all the “sudden deaths” that occurred from people taking the Vaccine.


Tens of Millions of innocent people who were not sick, and who trusted the main stream media and politicians to give them good medical advice were killed because the Vaccine was the disease.

The vaccine killed many more than the disease.

This is all unsupported, baseless speculation.