Members banned from this thread: AProudLefty and ParachuteAdams |
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75 percent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So really these are people who were unwell to begin with.”
That declaration by Joe Bien's director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, is one of those fall-out-of-your-chair moments. You’re tempted to repeat it several times just to be sure every syllable is in the right place.
Did she mean the deaths of all the people who died of Covid? Seventy-five percent. Or did she mean the people who died with Covid? The proposition, we have learned, matters.
How many people actually died of Covid has been a dark CDC secret from early on.
What Dr. Walensky is now telling us is that Covid-19 posed a mortal danger to that fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-fraction of really unwell people.
We already knew this because the CDC told us that “More than 81 percent of Covid-19 deaths occur in people over age sixty-five” and “the number of deaths among people over age sixty-five is eighty times higher than the number of deaths among people aged 18-29.”
Now we know that those who died were really sick.
Maybe so sick that were already dying and Covid had nothing to do with it, except that it was convenient for the CDC, the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and various people in political office to pretend that Covid was the return of the Black Death.
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/time-cdc-get-clue-rochelle-walensky-comorbidities/
You are completely unable to put a sentence together without lying. So here it is:
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2TS0S2
For Whom Do the Covid “Fact Checkers” Really Work?
There are two types of COVID19 survivors— those who have documented recovery from sars-cov-2 (either PCR, antigen or serology + tests) or those who have self-identified recovery from sars-cov 2 (said they had it).
When it comes to the former group, we know with confidence, the chance they get re-infected and severely ill is very very low, and far lower than people who have not yet had and recovered from COVID19 (this is called natural immunity). The data in support of this is massive, and quite certain. Antibody data is beside the point— we care about the thing in itself getting sick.
So do these people (those who recovered) benefit from vaccination? Current data is solely observational— and that is a huge problem. If you compare people with recovery who chose to get the vax vs. those who chose not to get it— you are comparing very different types of people. Their behavior, and appetite to take risks (going out to crowded places) may also be different. We know both groups have very low rates of re-infection, but direct comparisons to assess vaccine efficacy after recovery are fraught.
The right answer would be to conduct an RCT of vaccination among those who recovered. It could have 3 arms. No further doses; 1 dose, or 2 doses. It could be large (after all, millions have recovered), and powered to look for rates of severe disease. In the absence of this, experts are largely speculating.
So here is what blows my mind: We are living in a world where the CDC director can say something that is false, made-up and no institution will say otherwise. At the same time, major, venerable fact checking institutions are literally asserting as fact something which is at best unproven.
No matter how you feel about these issues; these are dangerous times. Truth and falsehood is not a matter of science but cultural power— the ability to proclaim and define the truth. If this continues, dark times lie ahead. Someday soon, we may not like who defines the truth.
https://brownstone.org/articles/for-whom-do-the-covid-fact-checkers-really-work/
When the government subsidizes the categorization of something, they want more of it.
Bookmarks