Wuhan Flu update.

[bellisarius]

Well, it's been a little over a year since the Wuhan Flu turned the world upside down. What have we learned?

In the lock down vs. no lock down battle there appears to be no clear winner. As predicted the virus found a way to defeat most measures put in place. The only real difference between the two approaches was the severe economic damage suffered by those governmental entities that went the hard lock down route.

Yes folks, it did come from that lab in Wuhan. Only the hardest core shill for the CCP is trying to pretend otherwise now. Once again I 'called the ball' on that one. The only questions left to be answered are;

1. Was it purposely released?

2. Was it an engineered virus?

On the first question I'll posit "No". I think it was a result of typical Chinese sloppy safeguards.

The answer to the second is way above my pay grade but serious researchers are now beginning to ask that same question. The problem here is that the CCP has had plenty of time to cover it's tracks. An investigation into this question should have been started almost immediately.

We were assured by the Media and respected researchers that the virus did NOT originate in that lab and that there was "no way" that this was an engineered virus. Media and researchers that all turned out to be lying sons a bitches. I hold the media especially at fault in that instead of digging for the truth they were actively complicit in burying the truth. Journalism in any real sense of the word is dead. Blindly believe the media, any media, at your own peril.

 

[jaF0]

Well, it's been a little over a year since the Wuhan Flu

I stopped there since the term says you have zero credibility.

 

[Sean]

Yes folks, it did come from that lab in Wuhan. Only the hardest core shill for the CCP is trying to pretend otherwise now. Once again I 'called the ball' on that one. peril.

And your evidence for this is?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Since this is what I do for a living (well, use to before becoming upper management)
Here are the current results of my model:

I have a current prevalence of 5.4%. So 17.8m cases, 38k deaths, .21% mortality
By the end of year prevalence will be 6.97%. So 23million cases, mortality stays constant for 49k deaths. W/O social distance the numbers would have been 37mill and 78k deaths at a prevalence of 11.34%

This compares to the flu at 35mill and 34k deaths.

So now you all can come back in 2021 and laugh at how wrong my numbers turn out because you don’t understand how models work...

OMG Spike spikes spikes!!!

Sure... there is certainly some spikes. But how would we know the degree?

Testing has increased dramatically. The CDC publishes guidelines on including "probable" testing in the actual results. People are taking multiple tests, being tested coming in and going out of hospitals. All results are counted. Even if it is the same case. Labs are reporting 1005, 80%, 90% postivity. Impossible numbers. Admitting they are not reporting negative cases. Reporting procedures vary from state to state and lab to lab...


https://i0.wp.com/wmbriggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/us.tests_-2.png?resize=768%2C427&ssl=1

All while the deaths continue down...

https://i0.wp.com/wmbriggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/us_weeklycdccoviddead-2.png?resize=768%2C320&ssl=1

That just stupid! Deaths lag!

Sure they do... by 10-15 days. Yet we are 5 weeks in to this spikes.

Well hospitals are overwhelmed. Capacity is exceeding 80%!!! Death and doom I say!!

First of all. 80% plus bed use is normal. If hospitals do not have 80% plus bed use they go out of business. Second, while the media screams ~80%. What they do not tell you is ~60% of that ~80% is not Covid.

For the all citizens we have a disease a little worse than the flu. For those under 65 with no comorbidity we have a disease less dangerous than the flu.

So at the end of the day. Deaths decline, mortality declines, no one is overwhelmed.

But yet it is a election year. So for a few more votes, to get the sheep in line...

We destroy the economy. depression increases 300%. Drug and alcohol use and deaths increase. Domestic violence increases. The damage we do to are kids is severe and will be felt for years.


Shame....

lolwut

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Where's AJ to incorrectly chastize Ishtard for not posting this on the P.B.?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Well, it's been a little over a year since the Wuhan Flu turned the world upside down. What have we learned?

In the lock down vs. no lock down battle there appears to be no clear winner. As predicted the virus found a way to defeat most measures put in place. The only real difference between the two approaches was the severe economic damage suffered by those governmental entities that went the hard lock down route.

Yes folks, it did come from that lab in Wuhan. Only the hardest core shill for the CCP is trying to pretend otherwise now. Once again I 'called the ball' on that one. The only questions left to be answered are;

1. Was it purposely released?

2. Was it an engineered virus?

On the first question I'll posit "No". I think it was a result of typical Chinese sloppy safeguards.

The answer to the second is way above my pay grade but serious researchers are now beginning to ask that same question. The problem here is that the CCP has had plenty of time to cover it's tracks. An investigation into this question should have been started almost immediately.

We were assured by the Media and respected researchers that the virus did NOT originate in that lab and that there was "no way" that this was an engineered virus. Media and researchers that all turned out to be lying sons a bitches. I hold the media especially at fault in that instead of digging for the truth they were actively complicit in burying the truth. Journalism in any real sense of the word is dead. Blindly believe the media, any media, at your own peril.

Is there an official report saying the virus came from the lab or is it still speculation that convinced you?

 

[MartinHeidegger]

lolwut

Stupid don't fall far from the tree.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Stupid don't fall far from the tree.

Kinda hard not to when your family tree doesn't branch out.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I have read the articles that say it MAY have come from a lab and that even Fauci himself is admitting to the possiblity.

But even if that is the case, it is ludicrous to assume it was deliberatey weaponized, as some might imply. For the simple reason that it is a double edged sword; the population of China was just as affected as the rest of the world, as was their economy.

I think most people (most DECENT people, anyway) believed in, and supported, the lockdowns initially because: a) they genuinely believed it would help curb the spread of the virus) and b) they believed it would be a temporary measure, a one time measure lasting only a few weeks, after which time the virus would die out.

But the sad thing is, that was wrong on both counts. The lockdowns have not curbed the spread of the virus, and they were neither short term nor one time lasting only a few weeks. Some places now are in their second or even third or fourth round of lockdowns. Really, at this point, the only hope for ending this is mass vaccinations or herd immunity.

 

[Conager]

After 18 months with no studies supporting the idea that the masks that didn't work in 1918 magically work now, Stanford finally got around to studying maks for efficacy and side effects as published by the NIH and concluded they make no difference and have caused harm both medically and psychologically.

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]

Because, math.

Called it.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

After 18 months with no studies supporting the idea that the masks that didn't work in 1918 magically work now, the NIH finally got around to studying maks for efficacy and side effects and concluded they make no difference and have caused harm both medically and psychologically.

Called it.

Que've got to be kidding. Just because you deny science and facts doesn't mean you called anything.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

After 18 months with no studies supporting the idea that the masks that didn't work in 1918 magically work now, Standford finally got around to studying maks for efficacy and side effects as published by the NIH and concluded they make no difference and have caused harm both medically and psychologically.

Called it.

Que've got to be joking. It wasn't a "Standford" nor NIH publication, nor did it show what you claim it did.

 

[Conager]

Excellent job on the fill-in for Luk the Pedant, even if you are two minutes after I corrected it.

Interesting that Stanford is a science denier. Does Stanford repudiate the NIH that posted it as well?

Perhaps they will support the <politicized> "science" remaining at the NIH, now that the NIH retracted the article.

None of which makes the facts outlined or the conclusions drawn any less valid.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Excellent job on the fill-in for Luk the Pedant, even if you are two minutes after I corrected it.

Interesting that Stanford is a science denier. Does Stanford repudiate the NIH that posted it as well?

Perhaps they will support the <politicized> "science" remaining at the NIH, now that the NIH retracted the article.

None of which makes the facts outlined or the conclusions drawn any less valid.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Ha!

What a dumbshit. See? Now I make fun of you for correcting my "your" and "your." I make a minor mistake and you fuck up your entire argument.

 

[bellisarius]

I have read the articles that say it MAY have come from a lab and that even Fauci himself is admitting to the possiblity.

But even if that is the case, it is ludicrous to assume it was deliberatey weaponized, as some might imply. For the simple reason that it is a double edged sword; the population of China was just as affected as the rest of the world, as was their economy.

I think most people (most DECENT people, anyway) believed in, and supported, the lockdowns initially because: a) they genuinely believed it would help curb the spread of the virus) and b) they believed it would be a temporary measure, a one time measure lasting only a few weeks, after which time the virus would die out.

But the sad thing is, that was wrong on both counts. The lockdowns have not curbed the spread of the virus, and they were neither short term nor one time lasting only a few weeks. Some places now are in their second or even third or fourth round of lockdowns. Really, at this point, the only hope for ending this is mass vaccinations or herd immunity.

Illogical, borderline insane, but not ludicrous at all. I agree that they didn't mean for it to get out and have already said so. And they may not have been trying to weaponize it at all, but had some other purpose in mind.

Regardless a full blown investigation is called for and sever sanctions placed on China if they fail to cooperate.

 

[bellisarius]

I stopped there since the term says you have zero credibility.

Ahh, poor little 'woke' fuck wad.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Ha!

What a dumbshit. See? Now I make fun of you for correcting my "your" and "your." I make a minor mistake and you fuck up your entire argument.

I see that queerbait is still the dunce in his class. What a sad little tranny.

 

[sigh]

After 18 months with no studies supporting the idea that the masks that didn't work in 1918 magically work now, Stanford finally got around to studying maks for efficacy and side effects as published by the NIH and concluded they make no difference and have caused harm both medically and psychologically.



Because, math.

Called it.

The article you've quoted has been retracted by the publication. The following reasons were given for the retraction by the editorial board:

1. A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.

2. The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.

3. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements.

4. The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016.

 

[sigh]

The article's lead author cheated, lied, misquoted and used unverified data. C'mon, Q, you've got to find something better than that.

 

[sigh]

Ahh, poor little 'woke' fuck wad.

I'd much rather be woke than endlessly asleep.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Que've got to be joking. It wasn't a "Standford" nor NIH publication, nor did it show what you claim it did.

Que went full Que. The article was redacted.

 

[Lazaran]

I'd much rather be woke than endlessly asleep.

Yeah, considering that "woke" simply means going through life with your eyes open to the truth, I don't understand why deplorables think it's such an insult.

 

[Conager]

The article you've quoted has been retracted by the publication. The following reasons were given for the retraction by the editorial board:

1. A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission.

2. The manuscript misquotes and selectively cites published papers. References #16, 17, 25 and 26 are all misquoted.

3. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health Consequences, generated by the author. All data in the table is unverified, and there are several speculative statements.

4. The author submitted that he is currently affiliated to Stanford University, and VA Palo Alto Health Care System. However, both institutions have confirmed that Dr Vainshelboim ended his connection with them in 2016.

Cite the studies that show mask efficacy that the "broad survey" found.

You are aware (aren't you?) That hospital-grade HEPA filtration systems do not filter out airborne viruses?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways. First, masks prevent infected persons from exposing others to SARS-CoV-2 by blocking exhalation of virus-containing droplets into the air (termed source control). This aspect of mask wearing is especially important because it is estimated that at least 50% or more of transmissions are from persons who never develop symptoms or those who are in the presymptomatic phase of COVID-19 illness.1 In recent laboratory experiments, multilayer cloth masks were more effective than single-layer masks, blocking as much as 50% to 70% of exhaled small droplets and particles.2,3 In some cases, cloth masks have performed similar to surgical or procedure masks for source control. Second, masks protect uninfected wearers. Masks form a barrier to large respiratory droplets that could land on exposed mucous membranes of the eye, nose, and mouth. Masks can also partially filter out small droplets and particles from inhaled air. Multiple layers of fabric and fabrics with higher thread counts improve filtration. However, the observed effectiveness of cloth masks to protect the wearer is lower than their effectiveness for source control,3 and the filtration capacity of cloth masks can be highly dependent on design, fit, and materials used. Standards for cloth masks are needed to help consumers select marketed products.

https://i.imgur.com/eN39yLI.png

 

[renard_ruse]

Yes it was "purposedly released." Yes it was a minor illness that was MASSIVELY overhyped by the world establishment. Yes, the primary reason was to stop the re-election of Donald Trump. Yes, there were other agendas at play, but the original timeframe was going to be 2025 to 2028. The world pseudo-elite sped up the plan out of paranoia that Trump might be re-elected.