Posts by wearypilot34
17 posts shown.
Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.
Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.
Look, we are already eighteen months past the initial cases. I am not sure what additional "severe long-term consequences" for children we can realistically discuss at this stage. Any common virus can leave lasting effects... we don't go around vaccinating kids with mRNA shots against every single minor virus they might encounter.
The consensus among most virologists is that this is simply another highly adapted coronavirus. The mortality rate among the elderly is primarily driven by the fact that they haven't been exposed to similar viruses enough times to build up natural immunity.
Besides, the FDA set the efficacy threshold for approval at 50%. So, a 40% difference isn't actually that massive...
I had no idea he was under the weather. Generally speaking, someone managing a PDF moderator role should be someone who isn't overly preoccupied with the whole situation, rather than someone as emotionally invested as ego.
My posts seem to vanish precisely when the moderator ego is active on this forum. No explanation provided, nothing at all...
I am uploading a PDF regarding the coronavirus where I present a reasoned argument that vaccines aren't without risk. My points are backed by a scientific paper from Israel, the sudden spike in adverse event reports in the VAERS database, and the excess mortality data seen in the US during the weeks following peak vaccination rates in Israel.
By acting this way, the moderator likely thinks they are promoting vaccine uptake, but when people witness this kind of censorship, it only fuels conspiracy theories and drives vaccine hesitancy.
The truth is always preferable to lies, regardless of how difficult that truth might be to swallow.
I am not an anti-vaxxer—I got vaccinated myself—but everyone deserves to be fully aware of both the benefits and the risks before making their own decision.
Megan Green72 said:I hope you keep all your illnesses trapped inside your own four walls so you don't end up running to the ER the second something actually goes wrong.
The logic used by Tomasini is sound, whereas yours is purely tribal. Modern medicine serves its purpose quite well in many areas. However, when it comes to battling the coronavirus or common seasonal flus, we aren't exactly there yet...
Megan Green72 said:Your comment has zero to do with mine.
So what, you'd rather have "experts" design policy based on a best-case scenario? 🤔
Of course you ask for the worst-case scenario to plan your response. I don't see what the big deal is.
Yeah, I heard those analyses were done by some low-level hacks from the Robert Koch Institute too.
Even assuming a best-case scenario without those scientists stepping in, things would have been ten times worse than what happened in Sweden. They blatantly lied under orders just to justify stripping away civil liberties.
So now the picture is perfectly clear. Scientists essentially tossed everything they knew about epidemiology—along with all the guidance from the WHO, the CDC, and similar agencies prior to March 2020—straight into the trash. All because they were following political orders. The real question is... who was calling the shots behind the politicians?
Ferguson's model predicted 96,000 deaths for Sweden in the baseline scenario. Under the most pessimistic projections, we were looking at 182,000 dead, while the optimistic view sat at 52,000 during the spring wave of 2020. And remember, those figures were supposed to be just COVID deaths alone, not even accounting for the thousands upon thousands of additional fatalities caused by a total healthcare collapse. Yet, there was no Swedish healthcare collapse, and only 5,000 people died during that first wave. As we move forward, it becomes increasingly obvious that the model was nothing more than a complete fabrication.
The ruling class used to exert its influence through the clergy; today, they achieve the same results through the scientific community.
It isn't confusing at all; we're just waiting on a word from Angela Merkel.
Megan Green72 said:Look, saying people in America are gonna die because of an economic crisis is just wrong. Yeah, we’ll be broke—sure. But we aren't gonna be dropping dead from starvation because nobody can find a job. No way.
In countries that are already struggling—places where people are actually starving even before COVID-19 hit—an economic crash could definitely spike the death toll caused by the crisis.
Of course it's true. Poor nutrition, chronic stress, increased alcohol consumption, and the various other side effects of poverty all trigger illnesses that lead to premature death. There are millions of scientific papers on this exact subject. In the US, the life expectancy gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% is a staggering 14 years.
Megan Green72 said:Are we talking about the global scale or just here in America?
Both.
Economic crises leave permanent scars. There is no such thing as a temporary dip followed by a seamless return to the previous trajectory. We will undoubtedly see a loss of life driven solely by economic fallout—not even mentioning the secondary effects, particularly those hitting young people and children.
The actual scale of that loss of life... well, that is perhaps a conversation for another time.
Chloe Robinson5 said:People are dying because they won't follow orders.
It's not quite that dramatic, but yeah, the mandates are pretty mindless, I'll give you that.
Naturally, economic fallout leaves its mark on life expectancy. It isn't the patrons of the breweries who suffer from their closure, but certainly the owners and the staff. And it isn't just breweries shutting down...
Unemployment leads to shorter lifespans:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sci.../2016/8290435/The economic crisis will also result in lower incomes for most of the population. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest spans a full 14 years, covering the entire spectrum.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2733322Life Expectancy by Household Income
Higher household income was associated with higher life expectancy (Figure 1A). For the years 2011 to 2015, men with income in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 70.6 years (95% CI, 69.6-71.6), while men in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 84.4 years (95% CI, 83.4-85.4 years), a difference of 13.8 years (95% CI, 12.3-15.2) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Women in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 78.0 years (95% CI, 77.1-78.9) and women in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 86.4 years (95% CI, 85.7-87.1), a difference of 8.4 years (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).
Of individuals with income in the lowest 1%, 50.6% (95% CI, 50.4%-50.8%) lived in single-person households (Figure 2), while only 9% (95% CI, 8.9%-9.1%) of individuals in the top 1% of income were single-person households. Of individuals in the bottom 1% of income, 18.2% (95% CI, 18.0%-18.4%) had a university education, and of individuals in the top 1% of income, 53.9% (95% CI, 53.6%-54.1%) had a university education. Life expectancy was higher for individuals with higher education in All levels of income (Figure 1B and C), and the shape of the curves showing life expectancy by income were similar when stratifying by level of education.
Carol Barnes36 said:Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.
The actual number of deaths is relatively low when you weigh it against the damage caused by measures that don't even yield significant results—clearly evidenced by how most countries end up with similar outcomes regardless of how strict their mandates were. Then there's the subsequent loss of life years due to that collateral damage. It isn't a choice between lives or the economy. It’s just lives versus lives...
nimbleharbor10 said:Exactly. What kind of threat does a man pose just by digging in his own dirt out in a rural area? It is sheer idiocy to prevent him from doing that.
My take is this: someone drafted this in an incredibly poor and imprecise manner. They are banning far too much, and the language is vague and lacks any legitimate justification. You should regulate gatherings, not basic movement.
I agree, this whole thing is pointless. They aren't even cracking down on people violating self-isolation or huge crowds, yet they're slapping bans on law-abiding citizens.
Greed serves as the engine for every system, not just capitalism...
I am looking for a recommendation for a gastroenterologist who specializes in bile duct diseases... either private practice or through Medicare
The New World Order represents the greatest threat to our long-standing American people... brothers, listen to me. The Trilateral Commission is merely a front for an even more secretive organization that I am aware of, though I cannot disclose it publicly here. I can only share the details via private message.