Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by superquag

Relevant bit:- "Individuals can become immune by recovering from an earlier infection or through vaccination.[3]"

It's not just about "avoiding the sniffle", but avoiding potential long term damage to organs, the endothelial cells and stuff they haven't yet found.

A vaccine isn't just about getting this thing under control, it's also about people not dying immediately and trying to prevent them having significantly shortened potential life spans based on life-limiting damage that is only just starting to be quantified.

Originally Posted by superquag

Good definition. However, the WHO is not 'QUITE' seeing it - as we believe it used to... They don't agree with you

Today, on their site, they rabbit on about herd immunity tied to vaccines. Period... No mention of getting immunity the Hard Way !

"What is herd immunity?
‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.
"

And this is from where I copied the above. :- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology, antibodies and immunity

(occasionally useful as they keep PREVIOUS data, tends to demolish denials. like. "That was never on our website!" )

In the end, it matters less where a news piece appears, - Papers copy /quote /lift/ plagiarise from other media, shamelessly.. so a perfectly legit story finds it ways to The Times...and 'Turgid Tales', .. but the stolen story is still . Legit.

Anyway, the fact (checked ...) is the WHO, is, by NOW omitting half the story..is removing a truth and leaving us with a biased position which just so happens to agree with it's largest single funding source. Who loves everything to do with VACCINES. As does the WHO. - Africa and India are two of their beneficiaries.

If herd immunity is a predetermined percentage of the population, unable to contact an illness, does it matter whether that inability has been aquired by vaccination or previous contraction?
My point is that if immunity (regardless of method aquired) only lasts 6~12 months, herd immunity will never be achieved.

Originally Posted by superquag

Good definition. However, the WHO is not 'QUITE' seeing it - as we believe it used to... They don't agree with you

Today, on their site, they rabbit on about herd immunity tied to vaccines. Period... No mention of getting immunity the Hard Way !

... .... ...

I am not sure why you see the statements by the WHO as worth making a fuss about.

They are merely describing herd immunity, not redefining it. Furthermore they are describing it in the same way that medical sources have frequently described it in the past.

Medical sources such as the Dictionary of Nursing, published in 2008 and the Concise Medical Dictionary, published in 2010 define it as follows.

the immunity of a group, community, or population to an infectious disease as a result of mass vaccination.

Other medical sources have similar definitions or descriptions.

There is nothing new about emphasising the importance of vaccines in creating herd immunity. Perhaps that is because attempting to achieve it through natural infection can have unacceptable numbers of fatalities.

Originally Posted by BradC

It's not just about "avoiding the sniffle", but avoiding potential long term damage to organs, the endothelial cells and stuff they haven't yet found.

A vaccine isn't just about getting this thing under control, it's also about people not dying immediately and trying to prevent them having significantly shortened potential life spans based on life-limiting damage that is only just starting to be quantified.

Illuminates 'why' ? diabetics ( blood glucose / insulin etc out of control and sky-high) have such a bad trip. their endothelium is already savaged...

Best to be able to avoid & evade becoming unwell at any level.... and Plan B is to quickly reverse things if/when it happens.
Or, would you prefer ALL the $$$s be used on the main... leaving the reserve 'chute built on the small change... ?
And what do you think of anyone who tries to make this to happen.

Originally Posted by superquag

Illuminates 'why' ? diabetics ( blood glucose / insulin etc out of control and sky-high) have such a bad trip. their endothelium is already savaged...

Best to be able to avoid & evade becoming unwell at any level.... and Plan B is to quickly reverse things if/when it happens.
Or, would you prefer ALL the $$$s be used on the main... leaving the reserve 'chute built on the small change... ?

The issue I'm trying to highlight is one of the main purposes of the vaccine is "to avoid and evade becoming unwell at any level". How else is it supposed to happen when naturally acquired immunity by way of infection has the potential to leave un-detected land mines in the body even if you don't know you've had it.

Originally Posted by superquag

And what do you think of anyone who tries to make this to happen.

What I think is irrelevant. All I'll say is a considerable part of the world appears to be pulling together with the sole purpose of trying to stop people dying. There are large mis-steps made every day, both through incompetence and simply not knowing thine enemy.

from news.com.au
It tested 34,000 people within Wuhan, the surrounding Hubei province and a number of other cities outside the area, to see if they had antibodies to COVID-19 – a sign that they would have contracted the virus.
“The investigation found that the positive rate of new coronavirus antibodies in the community population in Wuhan was 4.43 per cent,” the report stated.
They would suggest almost 500,000 people in Wuhan contracted COVID-19, 10 times more than the 50,000 officially recorded

Originally Posted by Eevo

from news.com.au
It tested 34,000 people within Wuhan, the surrounding Hubei province and a number of other cities outside the area, to see if they had antibodies to COVID-19 – a sign that they would have contracted the virus.
“The investigation found that the positive rate of new coronavirus antibodies in the community population in Wuhan was 4.43 per cent,” the report stated.
They would suggest almost 500,000 people in Wuhan contracted COVID-19, 10 times more than the 50,000 officially recorded

A bit like Russia perhaps?

ABC version

Right Wing type version Fox News


All are about the same with "Russia admits coronavirus death toll three times higher than reported. New figures show that more than 186,000 Russians have died from the virus"

Russian papers still have a lot lower for their domestic misinformation "Russia has confirmed 3,131,550 cases of coronavirus and 56,426 deaths"

Personally I have know idea as usual Suspect misinformation and mistakes are sadly common.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Suspect misinformation and mistakes are sadly common.

Apply Hanlon's razor.