No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
"Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?
Intro:Our aim in this work was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. To achieve this, we have performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics. Moreover, we aimed to perform a cost-benefit analysis to compare lockdowns’ benefits (lives saved) with cost (lives lost).
Conclusion:
While our understanding of viral transmission mechanisms leads to the assumption that lockdowns may be an effective pandemic management tool, this assumption cannot be supported by the evidence-based analysis of the present COVID-19 pandemic, as well as of the 1918–1920 H1N1 influenza type-A pandemic (the Spanish Flu) and numerous less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: we estimate that, even if somewhat effective in preventing death caused by infection, lockdowns may claim 20 times more life than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown in the future."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368251/
And there goes the bat signal to Joe's Place. I expect this thread at the top of the page all day now.
Could just mean that Canada isn't free from the kinds of nutjobs that control half of American politics.
Certainly doesn't mean her apparent view - that requiring government workers to vax was bad - is correct.
No, her apparent view is correct.
Better late than never. Joe's place will be doing some angry masturbating when he sees this...
LOL
She can pander to unvaccinated folks, but the next pandemic that hits with another big mortality rate will end up being exactly the same; those who choose to not vaccinate will be left out.
And we should NOT waste medical resources on them trying to keep them alive, in front of people who DID vaccinate.
That word "we",... You should stop using it, because it makes it sound like there are others who agree with you.
Sounds incredibly inhumane... but I wouldn't expect anything less from the bought and paid for Pfizer rep on the board. Tell me you're a giant POS without saying "I'm a giant POS"...
Maybe we shouldn't resuscitate people who have heart attacks from the myocarditis they get from the jabs....
Last edited:
There are.
"We" should not waste medical resources on people who refuse to vaccinate for any communicable disease. Pay your own way. Buy some Essential Oils online to help yourself out.
They get WORSE myocarditis cases and MORE FREQUENTLY from the VIRUS
yeah but nobody is forcing the virus on people, governments are forcing the poison on its people. Enjoy your Pfizer blood money. Murderer.
The virus is forcing the virus on people.
And unvaccinated people (at the time of these restrictions) were (and still ARE) more likely to spread it to others.
#FACTS
But not the poisoned, I mean vaccinated right? because the poison, I mean vaccine stops transmission...
You go right ahead and double down on the stupid. Thankfully, I think you may have lost some of your support here over the course of the last few years.
You can repeat the lies Pfizer pays you to tell, but no one but you believes them anymore.
So, what % do you think the vaccines prevent transmission?
Toss out your "best guess" here
0%. They *might* lesson severity of symptoms. But the shots do nothing to thwart the spread.
Nope.
Try again
RELATED question - WHY do you think we run flu vaccinations in the Fall, and not "anytime of the year"?
Your turn who is "we" in your question, then I'll answer.
Not much?
- "However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation. "
- "Breakthrough infections were common, despite the residents’ relatively high vaccination rate of 81% with the primary vaccine series."
- Vaccinated residents with breakthrough infections were significantly less likely to transmit them: 28% versus 36% for those who were unvaccinated. But the likelihood of transmission grew by 6% for every five weeks that passed since someone’s last vaccine shot.
- Natural immunity from a prior infection also had a protective effect, and the risk of transmitting the virus was 23% for someone with a reinfection compared to 33% for someone who had never been infected.
5 weeks huh, well who doesn't want to be poisoned 6 times a year raise your hand!
You're getting close now.
Pfizer and Novavax demonstrated 28% to 40% efficacy against actual infection, at up to 4 months duration. Meaning that efficacy was HIGHER between 0 and 4 months.
So, do you understand what this means for "flu & Covid season"?
Let's see those lawsuit floodgates open.
Good luck with that; most venues gave people the option to mask up, instead, and get routine/weekly tests.
Now, back to the topic on "vaccine effectiveness".
Do you and your buddies understand what "28%-36% effectiveness against infection" means?
Those numbers are awful. The risks are far greater than the benefits, and I think the uptake numbers show people are finally catching on.
When I go to the store to buy a product, I always look for the ones that work 28-40% of the time. I love when my car gets me a quarter of the way to work.
Again: DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN AND IMPLY FOR VIRUS SPREAD?
"28-40% of the time" means you're a major-league caliber batter+
Now: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS HERE FOR VIRAL SPREAD?
This isn't baseball... we're talking about people's lives and health. Sorry but we have different definitions of "safe and effective" if the shot comes with a chance of myocarditis and an effective rate of 25-40% .
Like I said, I wouldn't praise my car for getting me a quarter of the way to work, but you insist it's a miracle from above. Good luck with that. Sorry you hitched your wagon to the Ford Pinto of vaccines.
Yes
So, AGAIN: DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE NUMBER MEAN?
I do not think ANY of you have run the math here.
So, you clearly do NOT understand the implications for "flu and Covid season" then.
