"Facts about COVID-19": Swiss Propaganda Research Article

roller

wiggle jiggle
Messages
775
also, there is the yearly flu pandemic - worldwide

its also everytime a somewhat different (mutated?) strain ?
no real (fully matching) vaccination available, faik.
nobody ever gets tested. its refused. in case there should be indeed a test for it..(?)

nobody ever gets autopsied... do we know how many really die of the flu yearly?
what exactly they die of, when it was the flu? nobody knows, do we?

it was a big issue, that people were autopsied in germany. the RKI robert koch institute refused and said it shouldnt be done.
only when the pathologists insisted on autopsies, they found that the respirator fatalties died of infections in the lung - caused by the devices...
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,217
I just don;t have enough strength to continue this debate with you indefinitely. I think you're wrong.

You may think I am wrong. But by your own admission, you were not even aware of the Asian countries I was talking about, nor their coronavirus control strategies.

This shoot first, ask questions later policy to disagreement is not conductive to good discussion.

I've been following the story in Asia for months, and have been following all the complex arguments about the efficacy of face masks and respirators. This background knowledge is important before you can engage in a constructive discussion about face masks. What I have read is not something I can easily sum up in one post; you need to do your own research and background reading. And that will take you several full days at a bare minimum.



This is your argument. It's not up to us to spend time and energy, both in short supply and therefore precious to us, to find evidence to support your argument.

So let me see, first of all you say about my argument that: "I couldn't disagree more strongly".

Then you say: "Er, what exactly is your argument"?

I am happy to give some pointers to people who want to read about face masks, but not if they start by strongly disagreeing with face mask use before they have read any of the details. It just seems like you are picking a fight for no apparent reason.



If you have active cases of a raging, highly communicable, and essentially undefeatable virus rampaging around, mask or no, the virulent nature of the disease and it's extremely high communicability pretty much guarantee that you're going to have COVID cases til you kill off approximately 50% of your entire population, or even more, sparing only those who manage to develop antibodies.

This and other comments you made about the pandemic are full of emotional language, but mathematics and factual details are needed to study this subject. I appreciate many people may be panicked by the pandemic, but you cannot use strong emotions as evidence that the pandemic is no controllable.



You keep referring to the slowing of the pandemic due to " .... the controlling measures ....", yet you don;t define what those measures have been.

These controlling measures are discussed every night on the news. Social distancing, washing hands, avoiding crowds, banning of jogging, wearing masks, closing schools, closing entertainment venues, etc, etc.



Please site those instances and countries.

See the article I posted up earlier for you. Let me quote the details:
Data from countries which enforced mandatory mask-wearing suggests they have helped curb the spread of the virus and keep death rates low.

Austria seemingly managed to reverse its crisis by making masks compulsory on April 6, following a spike in infections in late March.

In the fortnight since the rule was introduced, the nation's daily rise in positive cases dropped from 90 per million people every day to less than 10.

The Czech Republic and Slovakia were the first two countries in Europe to issue decrees making masks compulsory - and both have tiny infection rates per capita.

Just 63 Czechs per 100,000 has been infected and less than two per 100,000 have died from the virus.

In Slovakia, 21 per 100,000 people have caught it and just 0.2 per 100,000 have succumbed to the illness.

By comparison, 182 out of every 100,000 Britons has been infected and 25 per 100,000 have fallen victim to the virus.

Similar patterns can be seen for mask-wearing countries outside of Europe, with South Korea and Japan halting major outbreaks without imposing lockdowns.

Fewer than eight out of every 100,000 Japanese people have contracted the virus and 0.1 per 100,000 have been killed by it. In South Korea, that number is 20 and 0.5, respectively.

It comes after more than 100 top UK doctors backed calls for the public to wear homemade face masks to protect themselves and others from contracting the virus.

They signed a letter saying they were 'increasingly alarmed at official inaction over the need for the public to wear face masks'.
 
Last edited:

YippeeKi YOW !!

Senior Member
Messages
16,075
Location
Second star to the right ...
But by your own admission, you were not even aware of the Asian countries I was talking about, nor their coronavirus control strategies.
This is not only specious, it's overtly disingenuous. I was very aware of the Asian countries' various attempts to control the virus, but you were quoting successes that were unsupported by the facts as I understood them as well as reality.


Please post the comment you state I made admitting, as you've said, that I was unaware of the Asian countries you were talking about. What I said was that Asia was very, very, large, and I asked you to define which Asian countries you were lauding as having beaten the virus solely by the use of masks, etc, and without strong isolation policies.
This shoot first, ask questions later policy to disagreement is not conductive to good discussion.
Again, this is a specious and disingenuous reconfiguring of everything I've said. Please stop putting words in my mouth or, alternately, rewriting and refashioning the words I actually did say.
I've been following the story in Asia for months,
Then I assume that you're aware that Singapore, once held up as having had an outstanding response to the virus and lauded for it's successful approach to COVID, is now registering alarming numbers of new cases and deaths.
Then you say: "Er, what exactly is your argument"?
Please provide the post where I said 'Er, what exactly is your argument'.


Again, specious, disingenuous, and a complete rewriting and reconfiguring of what I actually said.
I am happy to give some pointers to people who want to read about face masks, but not if they start by strongly disagreeing with face mask use before they have read any of the details.
Nobody with eyes has interpreted your expressed views as offers to give us 'pointers'.


And just to be clear, yet again, I never argued with the use of face masks (there you go again, putting words in my mouth and restating the words that I did say). I argued with your position that face masks without isolation and shelter-at-home policies would be an effective approach to slowing and restraining this pandemic.
This and other comments you made about the pandemic are full of emotional language, but mathematics and factual details are needed to study this subject. I appreciate many people may be panicked by the pandemic, but you cannot use strong emotions as evidence that the pandemic is no controllable.
Emotional language? It clearly and strongly expressed exactly what every health agency and state, except for 4, in this country has already said, many many many times.


Here is my 'strong emotions' and 'emotional language' quote again, for anyone who wants to read it:

"If you have active cases of a raging, highly communicable, and essentially undefeatable virus rampaging around, mask or no, the virulent nature of the disease and it's extremely high communicability pretty much guarantee that you're going to have COVID cases til you kill off approximately 50% of your entire population, or even more, sparing only those who manage to develop antibodies."
These controlling measures are discussed every night on the news. Social distancing, washing hands, avoiding crowds, banning of jogging, wearing masks, closing schools, closing entertainment venues, etc, etc.
These aren't what you were talking about. Quite the contrary. You mentioned masks, and the need to end the most effective form of social distancing, at least at this point in any pandemic, which is staying the flock at home, thereby limiting your ability to either infect, or be infected by, anyone else, in the interest of getting the economic engine chugging along again, which seems to me to be potentially trading the lives of anyone who listens to this kind of advice in exchange for potential monetary benefit.


Arguments ad hominem are a poor substitute for actual thought and facts. Specious arguments are even worse.
 
Last edited:

roller

wiggle jiggle
Messages
775
The finding: anyone who has had another corona virus could be immune to Covid-19.
... means a third of the population could be already immune to the new Covid-19.


Christian Drosten and Charité Berlin discover:
Previous Corona infection could lead to Covid Immunity

At the same time, Drosten warns against over-interpreting the results.

According to Drosten, it cannot be ruled out that certain previous illnesses can lead to immunity to the coronavirus. The virologist said in the NDR podcast "The Coronavirus Update on April 24th.

In a study, his team examined T cells, i.e. blood cells that serve the immune defense. T cells from previously healed COVID-19 patients and from patients who have not yet been infected were examined.

"Surprisingly, it was seen that 34 percent of the patients had reactive T cells, even though they had never been in contact with the SARS-2 virus," says Drosten.

The virologist explains that there is a structural similarity between the four common cold coronaviruses known to affect humans and the new SARS-COV-2 virus.

First such observation worldwide

A previous illness with one of these four viruses could be an explanation for a so-called background immunity against the new coronavirus.

Drosten spoke of the first such observation worldwide, but also warned against over-interpreting the results. Under no circumstances should one conclude that a third of the population is immune.

Further explanations for mild or asymptomatic courses are also that the affected people got fewer viruses in the beginning or are in better shape overall.

Nothing will change in the number of those who die, after all it is an observation of reality. And a background immunity is already included in this.

Drosten: "It is not the case that one can always derive something from such simple scientific information for the course of the epidemic and the fate of the pandemic in Germany."

excerpt from:
https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/new...was-zu-kurz-in-der-bewertung_id_11921089.html


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/kampf-gegen-virus-virologe-drosten-entscheidungsrhythmus-der-politik-im-kampf-gegen-corona-etwas-zu-kurz-in-der-bewertung_id_11921089.html
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,562
Location
Austria
At that time - 4 weeks ago - those 20 countries had at least tested 1000 covid positive. Only Italy at time had a somewhat unusual mortality, compared to its very low 2017 rate. 5% of countries.

9 day later on March 27th I posted a much more refined update in the same thread:

In 9 days there were already 43 countries with more than 1000 covid positve tested. Of which the countries with abnormally high pneumonia deaths has risen to 3 (San Marino, Italy and Spain). 7% of countries

5 day later an other update on April 1st, I don't think I posted anywhere:

Already 50 countries with more than 1000 positive tested, while 7 countries with strikingly higher mortality. 14% of countries affected. A doubling in 5 days!

Its time for an update again.
Here it is:

View attachment 36936
View attachment 36937
View attachment 36938

Already 87 countries with more than 1000 positive tested. 14 with higher mortality. 16% of countries affected. It really slowed down!

10 days later there are 110 countries with above 1000 positives. Only 13 countries with higher mortality. With 13% of countries affected, its now clearly declining already. (below shreenshots in 4 parts, click each to enlarge and see details)

25.04a.png
25.04b.png
25.04c.png
25.04d.png

The majority of all by covid affected countries - 97 (83.4% of the world population)- experienced only 30% of the 2017 average influencia and pneumonia mortality-rate (calculated for those affected countries and the individual time period). Only 13 countries (4.1% of the world-population) experienced till now an in average 7 times higher mortality. For all these 110 covid-affected countries together, that amounts to 20% higher mortality than in 2017.

However, calculated for all countries of this world it is now only at about 60% of those who died in 2017 of influenzia/pneumonia in 2017 in equal periods.
 

andyguitar

Senior Member
Messages
6,757
Location
South east England
According to Drosten, it cannot be ruled out that certain previous illnesses can lead to immunity to the coronavirus. The virologist said in the NDR podcast "The Coronavirus Update on April 24th.
Something that I think is strange about this virus is how some people, despite being in close contact with a confirmed case, dont get infected. Married couples for instance. Also worth noting that during previous pandemics most people dont get infected. I think Drostens findings give the most probable reason why this is.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,562
Location
Austria
I think Drostens findings give the most probable reason why this is.

Has an other interesting but obvious aspect. Drosten was in the team who developed the first PCR test, right away used in China and anywhere else. In the original paper it even admitted that it would detect European bat species coronaviruses.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext

Detection range for SARS-related coronaviruses from bats

At present, the potential exposure to a common environmental source in early reported cases implicates the possibility of independent zoonotic infections with increased sequence variability [5]. To show that the assays can detect other bat-associated SARS-related viruses, we used the E gene assay to test six bat-derived faecal samples available from Drexler et al. [13] und Muth et al. [14]. These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir.

:bang-head:
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,562
Location
Austria
@pamojja do you mean that the positive immune reaction in Drosten's subjects was due to them having been infected by another bat virus and not Covid?

Other pets could since long carry those other corona bat viruses, their owner too. But more importantly, that covid PCR test is just too unspecific, if it shows positive also to other European corona viruses.
 

percyval577

nucleus caudatus et al
Messages
1,316
Location
Ik waak up
Thank you for the link, @pamojja , the paper is a bit difficult to look through. I don´t think that you are right, and remember that it had been said the test is of high specificity.

Maybe this makes it clear, one paragraph above the discussion; paragraphs herein by my:
Exclusivity of 2019 novel coronavirus based on clinical samples pre-tested positive for other respiratory viruses

Using the E and RdRp gene assays, we tested a total of 297 clinical samples from patients with respiratory disease from the biobanks of five laboratories that provide diagnostic services (one in Germany, two in the Netherlands, one in Hong Kong, one in the UK). We selected 198 samples from three university medical centres where patients from general and intensive care wards as well as mainly paediatric outpatient departments are seen (Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong). The remaining samples were contributed by national public health services performing surveillance studies (RIVM, PHE), with samples mainly submitted by practitioners. The samples contained the broadest range of respiratory agents possible and reflected the general spectrum of virus concentrations encountered in diagnostic laboratories in these countries (Table 2).

In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes. In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen but they were negative upon retesting with the same assay. These signals were not associated with any particular virus, and for each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive. Given the results from the extensive technical qualification described above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was not due to chemical instability of real-time PCR probes but most probably to handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests and controls during this evaluation study.
 
Back