Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too bad Trump waited months to tell us it was five times worse than the flu. He fucked it up bigley.Our economy declined because blue state governors put the country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
It's not 300,000. Get a fucking clue; This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each YearOut of all the lying, ignorant posts I have read on here, yours is at the top of the list.The lockdown was a result of Trump's denial and lies over covid. Had he gone a different way, people would have been more prepared. They weren't and they died.Our economy declined because blue state governors put 4he country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
Actually presidents have ZERO authority or jurisdiction over health care matter.
And ACTUALLY, although I dislike Trump, he was right about covid-19.
Fauci first claimed it had a lethality of 10%, then 1.8%, and later we found out it was 0.15% only. which put is about the same as seasonal flu.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve".
That has never ever ended any epidemic, and fact it prevents the early spike, which is what normally end all epidemics.
So Fauci forced the epidemic to keep going, not stop, and last forever.
Which is why to many died.
If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
Trump had intel going all the way back to January 2020 and called it the new Democrat hoax, comparing it to the Russia hoax. That's fact number one. Fact number two, he had an interview with Bob Woodward telling Bob that the Coronavirus was five times worse than the flu. And he never told us until the audio came out.
Now, here's where your post really gets into some stupid territory. OMG! I can't believe I read that.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve". You fucking idiot. Do you realize how stupid that is? In your previous sentence you said it was "about the same as the seasonal flu." "It's because Fauci goofed and tried to flatten the curve, that has never ended a pandemic. "Which is why too many died". You idiot, you just admitted it wasn't like the flu, and on top of that, Trump said it was five times worse than the flu.
You have proven you can't do simple math.
Seasonal flu kills about 30,000 people a month.
If you prevent it from ending, and make it last 10 months, that is 10 times 30,000.
Guess what?
That is 300,000.
He lost.View attachment 444471
Please let's not get into discussions of semantics and hair splitting. I mostly agree both with what you say and the definition quoted. The exceptions being that the "definition" is so ambiguous that it could mean almost anything or nothing. The actual form of government is rarely the form claimed by either the government or anybody else and is likely to be in constant flux. The actual government is likely to some combination of all those you mention with some unique variations. Social ownership however is no more than a pleasant fantasy as I said.Government controls production to the extent it is able. Socialism is a form of government. Social ownership is a myth sponsored by government propaganda in an attempt to convince people they have some kind input into decisions. Just a little feel-good lie. How exactly much ownership or control does a field hand on a farm have over the production of steel?From Wikipedia. As you can see, sources are referenced.Untrue terms. Doesn't matter who controls production. What matters is who controls government. Government does indeed control production to the extent it thinks possible.
All forms of government vary in the number of people who control the government and to what extent the government controls the People. And that is the primary difference between systems of government. A king, a dictator, a Pope, a commissar, a committee, a President all can be benevolent and good for the People or true asshoes and bad for the people they theoretically serve. About the only real difference is how quickly they tend to become tyrannical and need to be replaced.
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10]Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[11]While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12]social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15]
Socialism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Socialism is not really a form of government, but just one little aspect of government.
All socialism means is that government is allowed to be involved in or regulate production.
Like public schools, public health care, public utilities, child labor laws, trust busting, etc.
The actual form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc., is not at all indicated by is it is socialist or not.
Are we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
22 million people infected with possible long term health and organ damage is not trivial. You are way behind on the research.Too bad Trump waited months to tell us it was five times worse than the flu. He fucked it up bigley.Our economy declined because blue state governors put the country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
It obviously is NOT 5 times worse than the flu. The 2 numbers are R0 infection rate and lethality, both of which are about the same for transient flus. The R0 value is about 2, and the lethality is about 0.15%.
In fact, even now the totally death toll from covid-19 is only 0.07%.
It is less than trivial.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about? Overall, the CDC estimates that 12,000 and 61,000 deaths annually since 2010 can be blamed on the flu. The higher number reflects the particularly harsh 2017-2018 flu season. Most years, the US death toll from the flu is closer to 34,000 to 43,000. Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year.Are we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
You are totally uninformed.
The covid-19 virus can't even survive in the blood steam. It can not possibly get to any organ or do any damage at all. It only survives at all by hiding in external airways, like sinuses and in the lungs.
ALL the damage is done not by the virus, but ONLY by the over reaction of the immune system, the cytokine storm. Anyone who think the covid-19 is traveling around the body doing damage, really does not know anything at all about it, and should shut up.
And the significance of that is we CAN treat over active immune system reactions. We should easily be able to prevent there from being any damage from a covid-19 infection.
It's not 300,000. Get a fucking clue; This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each YearOut of all the lying, ignorant posts I have read on here, yours is at the top of the list.The lockdown was a result of Trump's denial and lies over covid. Had he gone a different way, people would have been more prepared. They weren't and they died.Our economy declined because blue state governors put 4he country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
Actually presidents have ZERO authority or jurisdiction over health care matter.
And ACTUALLY, although I dislike Trump, he was right about covid-19.
Fauci first claimed it had a lethality of 10%, then 1.8%, and later we found out it was 0.15% only. which put is about the same as seasonal flu.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve".
That has never ever ended any epidemic, and fact it prevents the early spike, which is what normally end all epidemics.
So Fauci forced the epidemic to keep going, not stop, and last forever.
Which is why to many died.
If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
Trump had intel going all the way back to January 2020 and called it the new Democrat hoax, comparing it to the Russia hoax. That's fact number one. Fact number two, he had an interview with Bob Woodward telling Bob that the Coronavirus was five times worse than the flu. And he never told us until the audio came out.
Now, here's where your post really gets into some stupid territory. OMG! I can't believe I read that.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve". You fucking idiot. Do you realize how stupid that is? In your previous sentence you said it was "about the same as the seasonal flu." "It's because Fauci goofed and tried to flatten the curve, that has never ended a pandemic. "Which is why too many died". You idiot, you just admitted it wasn't like the flu, and on top of that, Trump said it was five times worse than the flu.
You have proven you can't do simple math.
Seasonal flu kills about 30,000 people a month.
If you prevent it from ending, and make it last 10 months, that is 10 times 30,000.
Guess what?
That is 300,000.
Overall, the CDC estimates that 12,000 and 61,000 deaths annually since 2010 can be blamed on the flu. The higher number reflects the particularly harsh 2017-2018 flu season. Most years, the US death toll from the flu is closer to 34,000 to 43,000. Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year.
You are just too ignorant for intelligent debate; Fatigue, loss of smell, organ damage: A range of symptoms plague many Marylanders long after COVID-19 infectionAre we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
You are totally uninformed.
The covid-19 virus can't even survive in the blood steam. It can not possibly get to any organ or do any damage at all. It only survives at all by hiding in external airways, like sinuses and in the lungs.
ALL the damage is done not by the virus, but ONLY by the over reaction of the immune system, the cytokine storm. Anyone who think the covid-19 is traveling around the body doing damage, really does not know anything at all about it, and should shut up.
And the significance of that is we CAN treat over active immune system reactions. We should easily be able to prevent there from being any damage from a covid-19 infection.
What does survival in the blood stream have to do with anything. COVID starts a cascade that results in death. That makes it the cause of death.Are we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
You are totally uninformed.
The covid-19 virus can't even survive in the blood steam. It can not possibly get to any organ or do any damage at all. It only survives at all by hiding in external airways, like sinuses and in the lungs.
ALL the damage is done not by the virus, but ONLY by the over reaction of the immune system, the cytokine storm. Anyone who think the covid-19 is traveling around the body doing damage, really does not know anything at all about it, and should shut up.
And the significance of that is we CAN treat over active immune system reactions. We should easily be able to prevent there from being any damage from a covid-19 infection.
You have proven you can't do simple math.
Seasonal flu kills about 30,000 people a month.
If you prevent it from ending, and make it last 10 months, that is 10 times 30,000.
Guess what?
That is 300,000.
22 million people infected with possible long term health and organ damage is not trivial. You are way behind on the research.Too bad Trump waited months to tell us it was five times worse than the flu. He fucked it up bigley.Our economy declined because blue state governors put the country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
It obviously is NOT 5 times worse than the flu. The 2 numbers are R0 infection rate and lethality, both of which are about the same for transient flus. The R0 value is about 2, and the lethality is about 0.15%.
In fact, even now the totally death toll from covid-19 is only 0.07%.
It is less than trivial.
Sez you. I say he won. I trust me more than I do you. End of story.He lost.View attachment 444471
Please let's not get into discussions of semantics and hair splitting. I mostly agree both with what you say and the definition quoted. The exceptions being that the "definition" is so ambiguous that it could mean almost anything or nothing. The actual form of government is rarely the form claimed by either the government or anybody else and is likely to be in constant flux. The actual government is likely to some combination of all those you mention with some unique variations. Social ownership however is no more than a pleasant fantasy as I said.Government controls production to the extent it is able. Socialism is a form of government. Social ownership is a myth sponsored by government propaganda in an attempt to convince people they have some kind input into decisions. Just a little feel-good lie. How exactly much ownership or control does a field hand on a farm have over the production of steel?From Wikipedia. As you can see, sources are referenced.Untrue terms. Doesn't matter who controls production. What matters is who controls government. Government does indeed control production to the extent it thinks possible.
All forms of government vary in the number of people who control the government and to what extent the government controls the People. And that is the primary difference between systems of government. A king, a dictator, a Pope, a commissar, a committee, a President all can be benevolent and good for the People or true asshoes and bad for the people they theoretically serve. About the only real difference is how quickly they tend to become tyrannical and need to be replaced.
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10]Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[11]While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12]social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15]
Socialism - Wikipedia
Socialism is not really a form of government, but just one little aspect of government.
All socialism means is that government is allowed to be involved in or regulate production.
Like public schools, public health care, public utilities, child labor laws, trust busting, etc.
The actual form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc., is not at all indicated by is it is socialist or not.
The real story starts when we have a new, legitimate resident in thr White House. You can say Trump won all you want. If he won, he wouldn’t be leaving.Sez you. I say he won. I trust me more than I do you. End of story.He lost.View attachment 444471
Please let's not get into discussions of semantics and hair splitting. I mostly agree both with what you say and the definition quoted. The exceptions being that the "definition" is so ambiguous that it could mean almost anything or nothing. The actual form of government is rarely the form claimed by either the government or anybody else and is likely to be in constant flux. The actual government is likely to some combination of all those you mention with some unique variations. Social ownership however is no more than a pleasant fantasy as I said.Government controls production to the extent it is able. Socialism is a form of government. Social ownership is a myth sponsored by government propaganda in an attempt to convince people they have some kind input into decisions. Just a little feel-good lie. How exactly much ownership or control does a field hand on a farm have over the production of steel?From Wikipedia. As you can see, sources are referenced.Untrue terms. Doesn't matter who controls production. What matters is who controls government. Government does indeed control production to the extent it thinks possible.
All forms of government vary in the number of people who control the government and to what extent the government controls the People. And that is the primary difference between systems of government. A king, a dictator, a Pope, a commissar, a committee, a President all can be benevolent and good for the People or true asshoes and bad for the people they theoretically serve. About the only real difference is how quickly they tend to become tyrannical and need to be replaced.
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10]Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[11]While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12]social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15]
Socialism - Wikipedia
Socialism is not really a form of government, but just one little aspect of government.
All socialism means is that government is allowed to be involved in or regulate production.
Like public schools, public health care, public utilities, child labor laws, trust busting, etc.
The actual form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc., is not at all indicated by is it is socialist or not.
Most people get a flu shot to keep it from spiking. People who don't are unprotected. Many viruses never go away. HIV is still here.It's not 300,000. Get a fucking clue; This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each YearOut of all the lying, ignorant posts I have read on here, yours is at the top of the list.The lockdown was a result of Trump's denial and lies over covid. Had he gone a different way, people would have been more prepared. They weren't and they died.Our economy declined because blue state governors put 4he country on lockdown, putting 370,000 small businesses OUT of business, putting MILLIONS on the unemployment lines. UNTIL Trump was illegally removed from office. Now all of a sudden, blue state governors and mayors want business back up and runningOur economy declined because of Trumps failures to address covid
Actually presidents have ZERO authority or jurisdiction over health care matter.
And ACTUALLY, although I dislike Trump, he was right about covid-19.
Fauci first claimed it had a lethality of 10%, then 1.8%, and later we found out it was 0.15% only. which put is about the same as seasonal flu.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve".
That has never ever ended any epidemic, and fact it prevents the early spike, which is what normally end all epidemics.
So Fauci forced the epidemic to keep going, not stop, and last forever.
Which is why to many died.
If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
Trump had intel going all the way back to January 2020 and called it the new Democrat hoax, comparing it to the Russia hoax. That's fact number one. Fact number two, he had an interview with Bob Woodward telling Bob that the Coronavirus was five times worse than the flu. And he never told us until the audio came out.
Now, here's where your post really gets into some stupid territory. OMG! I can't believe I read that.
So then why did 300,000 die?
It as because Fauci goofed and tried to "flatten the curve". You fucking idiot. Do you realize how stupid that is? In your previous sentence you said it was "about the same as the seasonal flu." "It's because Fauci goofed and tried to flatten the curve, that has never ended a pandemic. "Which is why too many died". You idiot, you just admitted it wasn't like the flu, and on top of that, Trump said it was five times worse than the flu.
You have proven you can't do simple math.
Seasonal flu kills about 30,000 people a month.
If you prevent it from ending, and make it last 10 months, that is 10 times 30,000.
Guess what?
That is 300,000.
Overall, the CDC estimates that 12,000 and 61,000 deaths annually since 2010 can be blamed on the flu. The higher number reflects the particularly harsh 2017-2018 flu season. Most years, the US death toll from the flu is closer to 34,000 to 43,000. Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year.
That is very ignorant because if you wear masks and social distance to "flatten the curve" with flu as well, you can prevent the spike and force to stick around FOREVER.
The reason we do not normally have annual flu for more than a month is that herd immunity kills it off after it spikes. If you prevent the spike by flattening the curve, then it will NOT go away. It will stay FOREVER!
What does survival in the blood stream have to do with anything. COVID starts a cascade that results in death. That makes it the cause of death.Are we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
You are totally uninformed.
The covid-19 virus can't even survive in the blood steam. It can not possibly get to any organ or do any damage at all. It only survives at all by hiding in external airways, like sinuses and in the lungs.
ALL the damage is done not by the virus, but ONLY by the over reaction of the immune system, the cytokine storm. Anyone who think the covid-19 is traveling around the body doing damage, really does not know anything at all about it, and should shut up.
And the significance of that is we CAN treat over active immune system reactions. We should easily be able to prevent there from being any damage from a covid-19 infection.
What, attacking the lungs? Really? You said there was no organ damage. LOl!What does survival in the blood stream have to do with anything. COVID starts a cascade that results in death. That makes it the cause of death.Are we actually reading this bloviating ignorance? Does this person know anything about long term health risks after the virus? MY God where do these idiots come from?to get to herd immunity, more than 200,000,000 have to have antibodies. so you must be saying we should’ve been ACCELERATING the number of infection. and forget about swamping our hospitals, they can manage just fine, no matter how many people need to get in. And never mind that reducing the number of infections reduces the chance of the virus mutating into a strain that is more deadly or that the vaccine won’t prevent.If instead we had let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended the epidemic in March, saving 260,000 lives.
in the early days there hadn’t been much research on how to treat COVID. A lot has been learned since then And the morbidity rate is declining - for now.
We SHOULD have been accelerating the infection rate. Since the young and healthy are essentially at no risk, we should have been deliberately infecting young volunteers. They could have been compensated for the tiny risk.
But no, your numbers and conclusions are totally wrong.
First of all, when you need 70% of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity, that has NOTHING at all to do with antibodies.
Since over half the population is and always has been inherently immune to every epidemic there has ever been, the estimates should have been that only 10 to 20% more would have had to gain immunity.
Remember that children as almost all inherently immune right off the bat.
By insolating only the vulnerable and quarantining the infected, we could have used variolation, (deliberate infection), or only the young and healthy, so had almost no hospitalization at all.
And NO, there would be NO variants or new strains because variolation would have achieve herd immunity in less than a month. That would prevent any new strains. New strains are a product of time, not spread. And if we had achieve herd immunity in March, we would have had neither less spread, not more. As it is, by "flattening the curve", we forced the epidemic to last over a year, which produced the most deaths and new strains possible.
And antibodies have nothing to do with it. Whether inherent immunity or acquired immunity, that only means your immune system has the ability to produce the correct antibodies in response. It does not mean you have to actually have them. And they only last a month or less anyway, so antibodies are not relevant.
You are totally uninformed.
The covid-19 virus can't even survive in the blood steam. It can not possibly get to any organ or do any damage at all. It only survives at all by hiding in external airways, like sinuses and in the lungs.
ALL the damage is done not by the virus, but ONLY by the over reaction of the immune system, the cytokine storm. Anyone who think the covid-19 is traveling around the body doing damage, really does not know anything at all about it, and should shut up.
And the significance of that is we CAN treat over active immune system reactions. We should easily be able to prevent there from being any damage from a covid-19 infection.
The point is that the actual covid-19 can't do any harm at all by itself.
It can only hide in the sinuses and lung airways, causing essentially no harm at all.
But when the immune system detects exosomes telling it that there is some covid-19 somewhere in the lungs, the immune freaks out and starts attacking the lungs.
It is called a "cytokine storm".
And it is this over active and totally wrong response by the immune system that does ALL the damage.
And why that matters is that we can't treat viruses, but we CAN EASILY treat over active immune responses.
We have lots of immuno suppressants for treating things like Lupus, diabetes, allergies, etc., which are all over responses by the immune system. And yes, the deadly fever of malaria is also one of those over active immune responses that is stopped by the immuno suppressant HCQ.
What's the lie? He was murdered.When will democrats stop lying about the officer that died?
Officer Sicknick's family wants people to stop making his death political & cause of death unknown
Officer Brian Sicknick died Wednesday night after being injured during the riot in the Capitol. It’s become a political flashpoint. According to ABC News, the family has had enough and asked that the public and the press stop making his passing political. Authorities believe a medical condition...www.independentsentinel.com
What you say with no evidence. Just your own wild imagination. That's sad, tragic, and dangerous. The dangerous part we witnessed on January 6th.Sez you. I say he won. I trust me more than I do you. End of story.He lost.View attachment 444471
Please let's not get into discussions of semantics and hair splitting. I mostly agree both with what you say and the definition quoted. The exceptions being that the "definition" is so ambiguous that it could mean almost anything or nothing. The actual form of government is rarely the form claimed by either the government or anybody else and is likely to be in constant flux. The actual government is likely to some combination of all those you mention with some unique variations. Social ownership however is no more than a pleasant fantasy as I said.Government controls production to the extent it is able. Socialism is a form of government. Social ownership is a myth sponsored by government propaganda in an attempt to convince people they have some kind input into decisions. Just a little feel-good lie. How exactly much ownership or control does a field hand on a farm have over the production of steel?From Wikipedia. As you can see, sources are referenced.Untrue terms. Doesn't matter who controls production. What matters is who controls government. Government does indeed control production to the extent it thinks possible.
All forms of government vary in the number of people who control the government and to what extent the government controls the People. And that is the primary difference between systems of government. A king, a dictator, a Pope, a commissar, a committee, a President all can be benevolent and good for the People or true asshoes and bad for the people they theoretically serve. About the only real difference is how quickly they tend to become tyrannical and need to be replaced.
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10]Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[11]While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12]social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15]
Socialism - Wikipedia
Socialism is not really a form of government, but just one little aspect of government.
All socialism means is that government is allowed to be involved in or regulate production.
Like public schools, public health care, public utilities, child labor laws, trust busting, etc.
The actual form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc., is not at all indicated by is it is socialist or not.
