It's actually not "idiotic" - unless you think thousands of scientists are "idiots:"At least you TRIED to make a point that time.
But smart people know there are many factors affecting the spread of infections. Your “point” seems to be that reducing vaccinations, mask usage, distancing etc., is the way to go if one wants to keep infection numbers down. That’s idiotic, but at least you tried that time.
For example, in the last few months there has been an inverse relationship between vaccination rates and infection rates in US states. That’s far more telling, but you ignore it. Why?
Well, 40% of Swedish households are of people who live alone. Probably the single most important reason (among ohers) Sweden has done relatively well in the pandemic. You of course argue not to have masks worn in public crowded places but for MASK WEARING EDUCATION (how to wear a mask well and the difference between hygenic and sterile mask wearing). Something which never happened in the U.S.Masks work, in medical settings when worn by professionals - mask mandates for the general public do not. What happens in effect is that they, at best, change who gets the disease - and by that I mean they may prevent some airborne transmission, but they contribute to just as many (if not more) infections from fomites, as people a) feel they give them the "safety" to go out when sick, and b) they fiddle with their masks with their hands and then touch common surfaces. You simply cannot find any valid data that shows these general mask mandates had any dampening effect on the rate of transmission of covid-19.
Thousands? That screed sure doesn’t list thousands of signers.It's actually not "idiotic" - unless you think thousands of scientists are "idiots:"
The-Great-Barrington-Declaration.pdf (bfc4u.org)
Sweden because the 40% single person households lessen the rate of transmission.
Israel wishes they were Sweden at this point. ha haAnd in populated Stockholm County there have been 1.85 deaths per 1000 residents, versus 0.83 in Israel.
Well it didn't really lessen it early on. Their single person households among the elderly are comparable to any other country. There are more young people living alone there, and they may have slowed but never stopped going out to clubs and such. I really don't think that accounts for their (current) low transmission and low death rates. They likely had a high incidence of natural immunity among their young from asymptomatic cases - which is how we beat novel viruses for thousands of years (until the progressives took over running all the shows).Sweden because the 40% single person households lessen the rate of transmission.
blah, blah, :0)Well it didn't really lessen it early on. Their single person households among the elderly are comparable to any other country. There are more young people living alone there, and they may have slowed but never stopped going out to clubs and such. I really don't think that accounts for their (current) low transmission and low death rates. They likely had a High incidence of natural immunity among their young from asymptomatic cases - which is how we beat novel viruses for thousands of years (until the progressives took over running all the shows).
Where did my post say that isn't the case? Obviously, the object is to not get sick. If it were possible for everyone to not be around others, an epidemic will get nipped in the bud. Of course, it is not, so the alternative is to do what Sweden did, and let natural immunity (which we now know is up to 27 times better than a vaccine) develop asap.blah, blah, :0)
In epidemics separation works. Live as hermit in a cabin in the woods and you will not get a human transmissible disease. In epidemics it is about probabilities and not sureties. From moment to moment you have a probability of being infected and the less time you spend in a High probability moment the less likely you will become infected. If you are exposed to disease inoculum the more in amount the more likely you'll get sick and the greater you sickness. This is a continuum not a binary.
But aren’t people far more likely to be reinfected after surviving wild Covid than to have a breakthrough infection after getting the vaccine?Where did my post say that isn't the case? Obviously, the object is to not get sick. If it were possible for everyone to not be around others, an epidemic will get nipped in the bud. Of course, it is not, so the alternative is to do what Sweden did, and let natural immunity (which we now know is up to 27 times better than a vaccine) develop asap.
Based on Covid alone, Israel. Sweden achieving artificially low case numbers by not testing does not reduce the risk of death.
No.But aren’t people far more likely to be reinfected after surviving wild Covid than to have a breakthrough infection after getting the vaccine?
So, looking about like it looked a year ago, roughly the same 1st and 2nd derivative at this point as at a year ago if you look at the graph.
One of many studies showing just the opposite, we’ll see what the meta-analysis says but given that one is an outlier …
CDC? LOL!One of many studies showing just the opposite, we’ll see what the meta-analysis says but given that one is an outlier …