COVID think-tank Harvard, Stanford, Oxford profs being censored!

We must ignore and then ban these scientists. Only ones who say approved sciency buzzwords like exponential growth, asymptomatic spread, and test and trace will allowed to be seen on our internet. Please refer to our latest high priest of science, Dr Fauci and ignore all other scientific data and information.

Sadly, I think your intaking something far more sinister than money.

Harambe wrote:

Life sucks, get covid wrote:

So...it's not possible to isolate the vulnerable but it is possible to isolate the entirety of society?

Uh.... I can't tell if you're trying to troll or are just stupid. I'll assume the former.

Targeted measures haven't worked. You can't keep the groups separate. I have not seen one example of this protocol working at all.

Everything proposed by these herd immunity dudes is already being done, for the most part.

Their proposal is thus: 1) keep protections on the vulnerable the same and 2) let younger people go about their lives and get infected

Logically, this will only lead to more cases among the vulnerable. I haven't seen a single policy proposal from these people that is actually novel.

If you can't isolate and separate a segment of the population, what makes you think you can do it for the entire population?

minister of information dept of pandemia wrote:

We must ignore and then ban these scientists. Only ones who say approved sciency buzzwords like exponential growth, asymptomatic spread, and test and trace will allowed to be seen on our internet. \.

Try Googling for any information that contradicts liberal COVID dogma. Google literally won't show it to you.

Life sucks, get covid wrote:

If you can't isolate and separate a segment of the population, what makes you think you can do it for the entire population?

The point is that if everyone takes care to avoid needless infections by doing relatively simple things like masking, interacting outside, getting tested and isolating, etc, then we keep overall case load in the population low and avoid deaths.

This is different than allowing a large segment of the population to stop caring, get highly infected, and then pretend that we can somehow 'isolate' the entire vulnerable population from this big surge in cases. We have already been trying to do the latter, and failing!

What makes you think we can suddenly isolate the vulnerable under a higher case load?

You're trying to present a meaningless false dichotomy.

Life sucks, get covid wrote:

minister of information dept of pandemia wrote:

We must ignore and then ban these scientists. Only ones who say approved sciency buzzwords like exponential growth, asymptomatic spread, and test and trace will allowed to be seen on our internet. \.

Try Googling for any information that contradicts liberal COVID dogma. Google literally won't show it to you.

I just googled "anti-lockdown" and got plenty of stuff. Maybe you're just bad at google. A lot of boomers are.

baby pangolin wrote:

Sadly, I think your intaking something far more sinister than money.

HCQ :)

Too bad HCQ doesn't come with an antipsychotic.

baby pangolin wrote:

Too bad HCQ doesn't come with an antipsychotic.

Choloroquine psychosis has been known for decades, actually:

Well, there ya' go. I retract my NPD diagnosis for a chemically induced psychosis via the HCQ your on

baby pangolin wrote:

Well, there ya' go. I retract my NPD diagnosis for a chemically induced psychosis via the HCQ your on

At least it keeps me COVID free

You wouldn't want to risk the odds of doing nothing and have a 99.97% chance of survival? That would be crazy. I'm going to climb the Diamond tomorrow but hey, that's nothing compared to shopping at Wal-Mart without a mask.

baby pangolin wrote:

You wouldn't want to risk the odds of doing nothing and have a 99.97% chance of survival? That would be crazy. I'm going to climb the Diamond tomorrow but hey, that's nothing compared to shopping at Wal-Mart without a mask.

Geez, I see the world is a confusing place when you can't pass 7th grade algebra. I feel for you. I will ship you a textbook if you want, my treat

Harambe wrote:

baby pangolin wrote:

Too bad HCQ doesn't come with an antipsychotic.

Choloroquine psychosis has been known for decades, actually:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2552796/

Two different medications. Stick to what you know(or think you know).

Harambe wrote:

baby pangolin wrote:

You wouldn't want to risk the odds of doing nothing and have a 99.97% chance of survival? That would be crazy. I'm going to climb the Diamond tomorrow but hey, that's nothing compared to shopping at Wal-Mart without a mask.

Geez, I see the world is a confusing place when you can't pass 7th grade algebra. I feel for you. I will ship you a textbook if you want, my treat

What don't you understand about what he just posted? These are the types of replies that ran off all of those deniers?

Ahh, insults from Harambe. The Narcissist is feeling threatened. Sleep well tonight Harambe under your warm wet blanket of fear. I'm heading towards the mountains now while you stay on letsrun and enjoy trying to flatten anyone that has a life. Don't be reckless. Driving in the car to get tested for COVID is far more dangerous than COVID... but you knew that, right?

Harambe wrote:

Darwin 12 wrote:

Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.

This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.

I’m swedish, and iirc we didn’t prohibit visits to the retirement homes until quite some time had passed. If you isolate the elderly until a vaccine arrives, and possibly impose some serious restrictions on people who work in said facilities, I think a strategy resolving around this could be very interesting. Normal, healthy people are in 99,x% of the cases fine after a corona infection, so why impose them with restrictions if the vunerable ones are the very old?

The Great Barrington clowns got a meeting with the White House while all the leading ID experts have been completely shut out. Probably a bit of a stretch to claim that these folks are being censored.

And to say that the Great Barrington trio are "outliers" is an insult to outliers. Their "herd immunity" strategy has been resoundingly slammed by the top 80 or so ID experts who all signed the John Snow Memorandum. The John Snow organizers all donated their time to drafting the memo and do not accept any funding from any source. By contrast, the Great Barrington clowns signed their "declaration" at the headquarters of business funded libertarian think tank.

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/

Sweden has it Right wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Choloroquine psychosis has been known for decades, actually:

Two different medications. Stick to what you know(or think you know).

Still defending HCQ? I admire your stubbornness. Most people have moved onto the next talking point.

There are case reports for HCQ as well. Makes since, since, you know, they're almost the same molecule. Likely hit a lot of the same off-targets.

This is all kind of secondary as me and pangolin were just trolling each other. Then you came jumping in to defended HCQ. I appreciate the earnestness