Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sour Mash

Members
  • Posts

    7,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sour Mash

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    rwxrwxr-x

Recent Profile Visitors

4,715 profile views
  1. Given that we have know about Ivermectin for over a year and its excellent super-safe risk profile there's no reason to sideline it into a trial to put it on the long finger. Let doctors prescribe it to confirmed infections and give it to those likely to be exposed to covid and look at the results. (by the way, love your attempt to label it a 'conspiracy'. Top class debating)
  2. So much for vaccines being the one true solution. Sooner or later, the 'delta variant' (Indian strain) is going to mutate into something even better at circumventing vaccine induced antibodies than it already is and then the government is going to be forced to look to things like Ivermectin which have a proven prophylactic and virus-fighting record and are broad spectrum.
  3. Please beware of falling into the trap of allowing COVID vaccine stategy scepticism to be labelled as 'anti-vax'. Anti-vaxxers are a specific group of people who pretty much believe all vaccines are bad or ill-advised. Just because someone is sceptical of this '100% vaccination of the population is the only solution for COVID' approach doesn't mean that they fall into the category of believing all vaccines are bad. But of course, it makes it easier for the propaganda machine to dismiss perfectly valid concerns. It's used as a label, like 'conspiracy theorist'.
  4. The doctor who produced the Ivermectin meta-study seems to be pretty convienced of its efficacy but then what does she know, compared to you? Personally, I find her approach of methodically explaining the study to be more convincing than your approach of slagging off anyone who advocates Ivermectin, but hey. Here's another view on the Israeli statistics : https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762: Vaccinated 6.72 times more likely to get re-infected than people who had been through the disease .... even accounting for uncontrolled factors it sure seems to me that natural immunity looks to be somewhat more 'robust' than vaccine induced immunity. But I'm sure you'll question the results and insist it's not true because of your incredible super-smarts meaning that anyone who disagrees is dumb.
  5. LOL. Well, if the sacred pope of science says it, we must just take it as fact. After all, to challenge the word of Fauci is to challenge science itself (as the great man pointed out) 🤣
  6. https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health Then they note, as I noted, that the benefit is that with the vaccine you don't need to experience the risks of catching the disease. However, millions of people in the UK already have caught the disease and cleared it. Makes no sense whatsover for those people to be vaccinated. All downside, no upside. On top of that, risks to the young are neglible so the risk/reward ratio of vaccination may very well not be worth taking. Yet the government is on a psychopathic mission to enforce vaccination across the entire population , most likely with vaccine passports used to strongarm people into taking it (plus no doubt, all the regular boosters which they will then say you require) in order to do basic things that people should be able to take for granted. With specific reference to COVID, Israeli study shows slightly better efficacy for natural immunity: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf Not a huge improvement but still better and once again showing that there's no need to vaccinate the millions who already have been through the disease. Aside from any of that, a bit of critical thinking analysis would tell you that your body is going to come up with a better antibody solution that a narrowly-targetted, hastily developed vaccine. Still, I'm sure vaccine v2.0 will be along next year and everyone will have to take it unless they want to be denied basic freedoms of movement.
  7. 'Natural' immunity usually tends to be better than Vaccine derived immunity. The advantage (and it is a big one) of the vaccine is that you don't suffer the risks and effects of the infection to get the immunity. You usually suffer risks and side effects from the vaccine itself of course but they tend to be much less severe/common, at least in properly developed vaccines, and you will have a good idea who is at risk from them. Typically vaccines will be given where appropriate too. So the risk/benefit ratio makes sense. However, rolling out hastily developed vaccines on emergency use authorisations (because they simply don't meet the standards that we expect for vaccines) across the entire population for something which primarily is deadly to the elderly (average COVID death rates tend to be around or above the average lifespan in the West) is just creating ideal conditions to encourage a virus to evolve. Not to mention exposing those who aren't much at risk (the millions of recovered COVID sufferers, the young) to all the downsides of a vaccine with few to no additional benefits. But I don't think the end goal here is public health. It's about money and control.
  8. If you understand that raising rates to any meaningful extent is not an option, it's totally rational to bet that the Fed will keep magicking money up. People should have realised by now that the 'debt' side of fiat money 'credit' no longer has any meaning. Nor do things like price discovery or other notions of traditional economics that assume the money supply has some sort of stability and that fiat money somehow reflects work/value. None of the credit/debt being frantically spewed out by CBs/Govts is ever going to be repaid in any meaningful form other than at best printed money (mostly electronic balance sheet form) that is going to be worth considerably less than the real-terms value that it holds right now. If you hold some credit in fiat cash at this stage, you can either use it to buy what you want or you can pick something to speculate on and hope that it holds its value or maybe even takes off with other speculators piling in and you outperform the sinking value of money. Roll the dice folks, sanity is not going to return any time soon.
  9. mRNA viruses are highly mutable - the fact that they exist as RNA and not DNA guarantees that they are highly prone to mutation. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01785/full 'Leaky', imperfect, vaccines will simply encourage those strains of the virus which are already more effective against them, to mutate into strains which are even better at evading antibodies conferred by said vaccines. It's not unlike antibiotics vs bacteria. Currently, the most 'successful' strains are those which are better at infected the vaccinated. That's the baseline going on. You won't ever fully eliminate COVID in the global human population, let alone certain animal populations which it has leaked into, so it will constantly be coming back. The idea that all you need to do is come up with some quickie vaccines in record time that rely on shortcuts to confer immunity and aren't fully compliant with normal vaccine safety protocols, and then strongarm entire populations into accepting them, whilst not even bothering to treat people you know are infected unless they become sick enough to require hospitalisation is so transparently against the interests of public health and the supposedly super-deadly nature of the virus that you use to justify said vaccination programmes as well as locking down entire economies, as to be completely absurd. Yet that's what our Western governments have opted for - there are hundreds of billions of dollars and an ongoing revenue stream for big pharma on the line. And politicians love more control and juicy kickbacks.
  10. Clearly many of the politicians love the idea of being able to introduce an electronic version of 'papers' that basically acts as an internal passport which people will be required to hold to enjoy basic freedoms. Anyone who thinks that once something like that is introduced, it will only be around for 'as long as needed', will only ever be used for COVID vaccinations and won't be expanded with whatever else those in power make you feel like accepting is at best a gullible fool. They are at worst a danger to the liberty of the rest of the population.
  11. Get with the plan - Vaccination of 100% of the population is clearly the one and only way ... at least until big pharma comes up with a patent-able variation of Ivermectin that they can make lots of money off of. Since COVID mutates like crazy, the infected, vaccinated people are essentially going to act like (a second) gain of function experiment encouraging ever more vaccine-resistant strains.
  12. Yep, they definitely need to watch those figures like a hawk and consider possibly taking action very much.
  13. More than that, UK HPI basically developed under Labour. When the Tories got in, some naively hoped that they might make good on their previous condemnation of low IR/high HPI and introduce some radical monetary and fiscal policies but of course they just continued the boosting HPI and pushing cheap credit that was so popular with the electorate.
  14. Correct, it's been 5% (on official figures) before and was over 2% for many, many months. No response from the BoE.
  15. No-one is arguing that herd immunity is the desirable end goal. However, if the means of achieving that immunity are purely to rely on 'leaky' vaccines then you run the risk of starting an 'arms race' with the virus being encouraged to mutate its way around the less than perfect immunity. Not unlike the situation with antibiotics .. you are accelerating evolution of resistant strains. Of course, for the 99.7% or so who get the virus, get through it and gain immunity (possibly 'superior' immunity to that offered by the current crop of vaccines) that way are also adding to herd immunity and the virus will go through that 'easy to infect' population fast. For example: The much nastier Spanish flu was over and done with in three seasons, without any sort of vaccine ever being developed. Not unreasonable to speculate that would have been the same timeframe for COVID to have 'gone away'. It's also not unreasonable to postulate that the various measures to slow the spread and roll out vaccines which just target very specific things (because it's the quickest way to get a viable vaccine) may well cause more trouble in the longer run as the virus hangs around and some strains get past less than perfect vaccine-induced immunity.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.