Go back
The immunity gap

The immunity gap

Debates


@no1marauder said
That's a conclusion totally unjustified by the studies presented. All conclude that opening schools for in person learning in the middle of a deadly pandemic led to more cases and more deaths; a completely predictable and inevitable result.

Nor is in school learning "essential"; almost all schools that were physically closed continued to operate virtually. Many busines ...[text shortened]... ealistic assumptions that would justify the re-opening of schools in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
No1 saw some studies. Seems like a good reason to throw away the right to live as a human, pack up and move to china where they still have lock downs, and enjoy the untold misery wrought upon the people of that country.

Oh, BTW, they still have thousands of cases too.


@wajoma said
No1 saw some studies. Seems like a good reason to throw away the right to live as a human, pack up and move to china where they still have lock downs, and enjoy the untold misery wrought upon the people of that country.

Oh, BTW, they still have thousands of cases too.
That "right" to spread contagious diseases you pretend that you have?


@no1marauder said
That "right" to spread contagious diseases you pretend that you have?
First you need to prove objective threat on an individual basis before locking people and children up willy nilly.

So you need to prove that a person is infectious - first, not on some whim that they might be.

I have a right to deal with others that don't buy into your cowering state worship. Anyone that believes your stories is free to lock themselves up. Others that would like to deal with me as I'd like to deal with them is none of your business.


@wajoma said
First you need to prove objective threat on an individual basis before locking people and children up willy nilly.

So you need to prove that a person is infectious - first, not on some whim that they might be.

I have a right to deal with others that don't buy into your cowering state worship. Anyone that believes your stories is free to lock themselves up. Others that would like to deal with me as I'd like to deal with them is none of your business.
Normally society allows mentally ill people to do as they will. However, when they pose a threat to others, their freedom to do so is reduced or eliminated.

Those who willfully insist on refusing to take reasonable precautions during an outbreak of a deadly contagious disease so that they increase the dangers to others are no different.


@no1marauder
The flu is a deadly contagious disease.


@no1marauder said
Normally society allows mentally ill people to do as they will. However, when they pose a threat to others, their freedom to do so is reduced or eliminated.

Those who willfully insist on refusing to take reasonable precautions during an outbreak of a deadly contagious disease so that they increase the dangers to others are no different.
The gene vaccines do not save lives.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/vaccinated-people-make-majority-covid-19-deaths-cdc-data

Lockdowns do not save lives. You were lied to about everything. That is why you were wrong about everything.


@no1marauder
Masks never worked. It has been proven.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/not-even-n95-masks-work-stop-covid

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-1966#.Y4Vu0QyBfBQ.twitter


@no1marauder said
Normally society allows mentally ill people to do as they will. However, when they pose a threat to others, their freedom to do so is reduced or eliminated.

Those who willfully insist on refusing to take reasonable precautions during an outbreak of a deadly contagious disease so that they increase the dangers to others are no different.
You are shedding mRNA to the unvaccinated. Your mRNA is contagious.

https://rumble.com/embed/v1vpckk/?pub=4

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/health-of-pure-bloods-threatened


@metal-brain said
You are shedding mRNA to the unvaccinated. Your mRNA is contagious.

https://rumble.com/embed/v1vpckk/?pub=4

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/health-of-pure-bloods-threatened
Pure bloods?

McCullough is really becoming just another nut job.

2 edits

@sh76 said
Pure bloods?

McCullough is really becoming just another nut job.
That is what people say about Mercola, but when called on proving it nobody can.
Prove it.

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/design-and-analysis-shedding-studies-virus-or-bacteria-based-gene-therapy-and-oncolytic-products

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427

Remember when anyone who said SARS2 was genetically engineered was a nutjob?
We have been vindicated there too. Andrew Huff is the former vice president of EcoHealth Alliance, which studied coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He says it was man made.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wuhan-whistleblower-former-ecohealth-vp-says-covid-man-made-escaped-lab

Stop calling people nutjobs just because you don't like the truth. You are more like no1 than you would like to admit.

2 edits

@no1marauder said
That's a conclusion totally unjustified by the studies presented. All conclude that opening schools for in person learning in the middle of a deadly pandemic led to more cases and more deaths; a completely predictable and inevitable result.

Nor is in school learning "essential"; almost all schools that were physically closed continued to operate virtually. Many busines ...[text shortened]... ealistic assumptions that would justify the re-opening of schools in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
Interesting take, but you are over interpreting what the authors concluded in their words. And you're not looking at the data.

Regarding cost-benefit, that math is impossible. But adolescent depression is way up, test scores are way down. A lot of those changes are linked to social isolation. We've known forever that social interaction is important for human development and happiness. That was taken away from a lot of kids for, maybe, transient 5% lower infection rates and no significant difference in deaths?


@metal-brain said
https://newspunch.com/sweden-refused-lockdowns-kept-schools-open-and-was-rewarded-with-lowest-excess-mortality-in-the-world/

"During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland recorded their highest monthly excess and all-cause mortality levels since the 1918 influenza pandemic"

That is only for the year 2020. That does not prove lives were saved. ...[text shortened]... able and cause damage. Your site cherry picked numbers from 1 year. What about the other years? DUH!
Newspunch.com

Hahahahahahaha

1 edit

@wildgrass said
Interesting take, but you are over interpreting what the authors concluded in their words. And you're not looking at the data.

Regarding cost-benefit, that math is impossible. But adolescent depression is way up, test scores are way down. A lot of those changes are linked to social isolation. We've known forever that social interaction is important for human development ...[text shortened]... lot of kids for, maybe, transient 5% lower infection rates and no significant difference in deaths?
I guess the authors of the study didn't "look at the data" either:

" As shown in Table 1, this rise in cases and deaths after the school opening is more pronounced in the counties with in-person or hybrid teaching than in those with remote teaching."

"In Fig. 1B, the number of deaths starts rapidly increasing after 3 to 5 wk of opening schools for counties that adopt in-person/hybrid teaching methods with no mask mandates."

COVID doesn't cause immediate deaths: " The median time it takes from the first symptoms of COVID-19 to death is 18.5 days." https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/covid-19-symptoms-progress-death-3536264/

And that is after symptoms appear, which usually isn't right away either. So the data is consistent with a "rapid increase" in deaths caused by school reopenings with in-person learning.

It's not that surprising that an increase in depression might occur during a pandemic that caused (so far) almost a million deaths in the US alone - sickness and death of loved ones is a common cause of depression.

As much as "social interactions" in school might be desirable, it is dubious to assert they are more important than people's lives and health.

1 edit

@no1marauder said
I guess the authors of the study didn't "look at the data" either:

" As shown in Table 1, this rise in cases and deaths after the school opening is more pronounced in the counties with in-person or hybrid teaching than in those with remote teaching."

"In Fig. 1B, the number of deaths starts rapidly increasing after 3 to 5 wk of opening schools for counties th ...[text shortened]... might be desirable, it is dubious to assert they are more important than people's lives and health.
You've picked some examples that speak to your bias, but a rise that is "more pronounced" is not very significant. The number of deaths "starts rapidly increasing" for in person, no mask, but it increases in all other groups too. Given that the time 0 death rates are already DOUBLE in the inperson, no mask counties, the rate increases are almost the same between in person mas.vs. remote groups. The authors cite several other papers showing no difference between in person and remote, and write that in person mitigation strategies of distancing and masking likely caused that negative result. This has led the authors to conclude that their findings "support policies that promote masking and precautionary measures" rather than "support remote learning."

Obviously your comment about pandemic-related factors other than the status of school opening could be applied to that and many other things. Of course there are many variables. We weigh public safety important but also take practical considerations into account (a 5 mph speed limit would save lives but isn't practical). Given the importance of schools, I don't think a 5% reduced rate of COVID spread from school closures comes anywhere near justification for closing them. The difference in before-opening death rate between counties is evidence enough that other mitigation strategies were much more important.


@wildgrass said
You've picked some examples that speak to your bias, but a rise that is "more pronounced" is not very significant. The number of deaths "starts rapidly increasing" for in person, no mask, but it increases in all other groups too. Given that the time 0 death rates are already DOUBLE in the inperson, no mask counties, the rate increases are almost the same between in person m ...[text shortened]... rate between counties is evidence enough that other mitigation strategies were much more important.
It's rather remarkable that you can come up with conclusions at variance with the authors of the study while pretending to rely on it.

Figure 1B clearly shows that weekly death rates are much higher in person re-openings with mask mandates than with remote learning (about double). And:

" Fig. 6A shows that the coefficients of visits to colleges and K–12 schools are positively estimated for 1) baseline, 2) and 3) an alternative time lag of 42 and 49 d, 4) setting the log of weekly deaths to 0 when we observe zero weekly deaths to compute death growth over 3 wk, and 5) to 8) adding more controls, providing robust evidence that an increase in visits to colleges and K–12 schools is positively associated with the subsequent increase in weekly death growth rates."

That schools were reopened in areas with higher COVID rates to begin with just shows the recklessness of this largely politically motivated government action. While opening in areas with a low rate of COVID cases and with masking and other mitigation measures may have been justified by the data, what actually happened in the US was of a different order entirely with in-person learning dictated even in urban areas with already high rates of infection. This was sure to and did contribute to the unnecessary spread of the disease and enhanced death rates.

A 5% reduction in COVID rates would have meant thousands of fewer deaths and many more reduced hospitalizations. I fail to see what was so important about in-school learning v. remote learning for a few months that justifies such a cost and neither you nor anyone else here has made a plausible case for it under these extraordinary circumstances.