Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Ian wrote: "Also, this statement that the death rate is 0.1 - 0.2% is not backed up. If you take the total deaths reported world-wide and the total cases reported world wide, the death rate remains at 5%. ..."

What you're alluding to a very common mistake, Ian.
That's the (incorrect) fatality rate of deaths verses RECORDED infected (i.e. only those who tested/confirmed to be infected, EXCLUDING those many more who had the virus but never got tested and therefore never got recorded as being infected).

The true and ONLY fatality rate (with any virus, not just this one), and which any medical scientist will tell you, must include antibody studies which reveals how many people were actually infected (rather than just recorded infected).

Stanford University put the fatality rate at 0.1-0.2% after analyzing millions of Americans' blood tests etc and discovering how many Americans actually have the disease. A major German University (I forget which one) put German's fatality rate at 0.14%.

Even the CDC, a very conservative medical body as you probably know, puts the fatality rate at 0.26% (the highest I am aware of for this virus).

Original modelling (which caused the lockdown) was London Imperial College and Johns Hopskins University's prediction of 3-4% fatality rate... 30-40 times the actual result!

So if you thought it was 5% fatality rate (which would be even worse than the Spanish Flu which was 3.5%!) then I can now understand why you are happy to lockdown long-term and risk economic depression (I would be too if it were anywhere near that high and which would almost be an Armageddon level virus!)

New estimate by CDC reduces COVID-19 death rate to just 0.26% https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/ne...
"For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has given a realistic estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, which in its most likely scenario is 0.26 %. They estimate a 0.4 % fatality rate among the symptomatic cases. If you consider their projection that 35% of all infected cases remain asymptomatic, the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) drops to just 0.26 %. This is almost exactly what the Stanford researchers had projected in April 2020."

"The Stanford study, led by Assistant Professor Eran Bendavid, concluded that the mortality rate in Santa Clara County is between 0.12% and 0.2%."

Stanford researcher says coronavirus isn’t as fatal as we thought https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/2...

"In an analysis, Dr. John Ioannidis places the fatality rate between 0.02%-0.4%, far lower than the 1%-and-way-up numbers that were once bandied about – and much closer to the 0.1% death rate of the flu."

What's the % of discrepancy in terms of age within that range you cite, James?

That could also be a factor to consider, albeit not related in this context directly but in other ways.

James, exactly how does a blood test show active virus? How do you exclude corona virus fragments? You do realise that just about everyone has experienced a corona virus at some stage in their life and the classification of viruses is made on fragments of RNA or protein (which are related). Where did a million blood samples come from? I am afraid, James, you are falling for the other sort of whitewash that Dr Trump is so keen to promote. Of course not every COVID-19 case is recorded, and not every death is assigned because who tests corpses? Especially when someone like Bolsinaro is busy trying to keep the death rate under wraps.

You cite Sweden as a high point in your argument. They have had 65157 assigned COVID-19 cases, and 5280 assigned deaths. Irrespective of how widespread the infection really was, 5280 deaths is not a huge endorsement of ignoring controls, especially since Sweden will have some of the best medical facilities. James, you accused me of regarding deaths as simply collateral damage for the policy of I am not sure. I suggest these deaths are the result of not trying to control the virus, and a deliberate consequence of bending to the plutocratic controllers of our lives.

James wrote: "Australia's PM Scott Morrison recently said international travellers will be allowed into Australia "by mid-2021 at the earliest"...

Does he know something about longer term plans, perhaps?"

Hell! NZ is relying on a so-called "trans-Tasman bubble" to crank up our ailing tourism industry. Looks like that may not happen for a while...

A big discussion, this trans-Tasman bubble. Can't see it happening for a while, though. If they get a reliable vaccine, we may be back to the smallpox days, where you needed a vaccination certificate to travel.

Ian wrote: "I am afraid, James, you are falling for the other sort of whitewash that Dr Trump is so keen to promote. Of course not every COVID-19 case is recorded, and not every death is assigned because who tests corpses?..."

Ian, this is all very basic scientific/mathematical stuff here (nothing to do with Trump or politics)... The very official CDC (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have listed the fatality rate as 0.26%, while Stanford said 0.1-0.2% (reminding you the average flu season is 0.1% but some flu seasons, especially the aforementioned 2017-2018 season, was estimated at 0.3%). The likes of the CDC are not going to be posting Trump propaganda or any other political propaganda (that's too conspiratorial even for the Underground! haha).

You are refusing to accept our best medical institute's studies into mortality rates and are instead stating on social media that it is around 25-50 times more deadly -- you posted earlier in this thread that you were totally sure the fatality rate is a whopping 5%. Do you realize that would possibly be the most fatal virus in human history if you also include the R0 factor is much higher than SARS and Ebola? Sweden and Japan and Taiwan would all collectively have about 6 people still alive by now were that the case :)

So here goes with basic mathematics...

Take the flu. If you, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and myself (4 people) all have the flu, but only Bill and myself actually go to the doctor, then the amount of people who have the flu is 4 not 2 (even tho only 2 will be recorded in the record books).

And then if I die from the flu and Bill doesn't, the fatality rate for our little group is not 50% - it's 25% as you and Donald still had the flu (which can be discovered later in antibody or other studies).

Likewise on the global stage - for every 1 person recorded to have the virus, around 10-100 times more actually have it (which is why the actual death rate is MUCH lower than many casual observers believe it to be when shown all those fancy numbers of deaths vs recorded infected).

So there are ways to test (as per the CDC and Stanford's exhaustive research with antibody studies etc where they've analyzed millions of people and noticed the virus has been circulating since late 2019 at least) how many Americans or Europeans or entire populations have actually had the virus (as opposed to how many have it ON RECORD).

Will this process be an exact science? No, it'll be estimates (I acknowledged that all along), but they are not going to be wildly out in terms of "margin of error" given they've now been studying this for half a year...So quite simply put, there is ZERO percent chance that it's going to be anywhere remotely near the Armageddon-like 5% mortality rate you stated or assumed or guessed it to be (sorry). According to all the best medical scientists it'll be somewhere around influenza's 0.1-0.3% mortality rate at the end of the day (mmmaybe a bit higher, but certainly not by much). And the other aspect is the R0 rate is different to influenza, granted, but again it's not by that much.

Now if you or anyone else can direct me to any major universities or scientific institutes like the CDC that suddenly reveals it has a much higher fatality rate, then I'll be more than happy to have this discussion again. And if you ever get some confirmation that it's 5% then I wanna be first to know please as I need time to start building my underground bunker and preparing weaponry to fight off zombies!

Oh, and one more thing: you are right that the death rate won't be totally accurate due to some people being unrecorded COVID deaths just like there are so many uncrecorded COVID infections. However, the difference is most people who are on the verge of dying will go to hospital, and they are testing anyone who goes near a hospital for the virus (and in some cases corpses too, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). So the amount of unrecorded deaths would be very small compared to the amount of unrecorded infections...

P.S. I never accused you of regarding deaths as simply collateral damage, you wrote the term "collateral damage" regarding deaths that have occurred for non-Covid illnesses because those patients (whether cancer or other patents) could not get treatment during this time. So I responded to that saying you are telling us all on the the one hand to "imagine how it would feel to die of a virus", but then on the other hand calling non-Covid deaths "collateral damage"...A better approach in my view is to acknowledge ALL LIVES MATTER (including those who will die due to economic depressions, increasing crime etc due to continued lockdowns), and then weigh things up -- again, I am not claiming to have ANY answers, but I just do not believe our society can make the right decision here from a purely medical perspective (too myopic)

Iain wrote: "What's the % of discrepancy in terms of age within that range you cite, James?

That could also be a factor to consider, albeit not related in this context directly but in other ways."

I think it's also similar to the flu, Iain - fatality rate goes up for every decade older you are.

James, the 5% comes from the number of deaths where the COVID-19 virus has been identified divided by the number of cases where the virus has been specifically identified. Both numbers will be underestimates, but these are cases where the virus has been properly identified, as opposed to some taxonomic markers picked up.

Chemotaxonomy is a difficult subject (I know, since I did some for 20 years and got myself on the editorial board of an international journal as a consequence) because you find some markers you think are specific for a species, and then find it turns up somewhere else. Unless you have a large set of markers that you have shown are only found in one species, you cannot use them to identify a sample as coming from a species. Further, they have to be in a correct array, and the problem with identifying blood samples is they will be degraded, unless the virus as a whole is in the blood. I could not comment on Stamford research without looking at the paper, but science also has the question of consistency.

If it is that widespread, why is it that in large numbers of people, most swabs test negative. It is not that widespread now. Second, there are claims that it has been identified in European sewage from a year ago. If so, why did nobody get particularly sick with it for almost a year, then suddenly we get something like half a million dead in about five months, the cases of it are following a clear exponential curve where there is no proper lockdown, and the hospitals in some places are working their ventilators very hard.

The obvious answer is the sewage tests were wrong. They were picking up corona virus, because all in the family will have a lot of common markers, but it wasn't this Sars virus. That mistake could equally occur elsewhere. Maybe not - maybe something weird is going on and it is not as dangerous, but to make that assertion one would have to carefully read the evidence and not rely on someone saying it.

Ian wrote: "James, the 5% comes from the number of deaths where the COVID-19 virus has been identified divided by the number of cases where the virus has been specifically identified...."

Exactly my point (as it doesn't include those many millions of people staying at home at riding out their mostly mild symptoms or people who did not even know they had it). So identified deaths vs identified infected is not the actual mortality rate.

But yes, I agree - time will tell and we'll (hopefully) soon find out if the likes of the CDC and Stanford are massively understating the mortality rate, or not.

If by chance it does stay in the 0.1-0.3% Influenza range, then presumably the existing narrative will have to be replaced... You'd think.

In another year we shall know. The economy is also a huge problem, and in my opinion quantitative easing is not going to provide the help bankers think, apart from saving large banks and making the very rich much richer. All that bad behaviour prior to 2007 has still been running strong. The weak, though are going to be defaulting massively and if the virus does not attract a cure or a vaccine, even without lockdowns the damage will keep mounting. It can take up to two months to recover from the virus, and having huge numbers taking a month or so off work is also going to hurt the economies.

Ian wrote: "In another year we shall know. The economy is also a huge problem, and in my opinion quantitative easing is not going to provide the help bankers think, apart from saving large banks and making the..."

Agree with all you say re financial system (dire straits!),
but going back to the "narrative" aspect, I would argue that if the scientific establishment ultimately agree Corona has a mortality rate in the 0.1-0.3% Influenza range (in line with the early studies of Stanford and the CDC), then we would not need to "attract a cure or a vaccine" anymore than we would NEED one for Influenza...

New scientific results require a new narrative.

James wrote: "Ian wrote: "In another year we shall know. The economy is also a huge problem, and in my opinion quantitative easing is not going to provide the help bankers think, apart from saving large banks an..."

Does the differing R-Naught factor vis-a-vis the flu not add extra demand for a solution, though?

James, in science if you get one claim that is markedly different from other experiences, you have to carefully examine the details of how it got there. New scie4ntific results need examination and verification before new narratives.

In an aged care facility here, someone brought in the virus and within days, about a third went down, and most died. They had survived decades of influenza. They might as well have brought in the lady with the candle.

As for influenza, we have annual vaccines for it. Some may not NEED it, but others do, which artificially lowers the death rate - those most susceptible get the vaccine.

Ian wrote: "In an aged care facility here, someone brought in the virus and within days, about a third went down, and most died. ..."

Ten flu deaths at nursing home https://www.theage.com.au/national/vi... A fatal flu outbreak at a Wangaratta nursing home, where 10 residents died of influenza and two others from respiratory illness

Flu outbreak kills 17 people in South Australia as nursing homes go into lockdown https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-1...

An Outbreak of Influenza A in a Nursing Home
"...a nursing home with 170 residents
and 130 employees in Frederick County, Maryland reported
an ongoing outbreak of an acute febrile respiratory illness in
nursing home residents and employees. Fourteen residents
had died, and it was felt by the staff that these deaths were
attributable to their respiratory illness. The mean age of the
residents was 83.2 years (range 62-100), and 83.5 per cent
were female." https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...

Just a few examples from history...

And yes, Ian, you are absolutely correct that "New scientific results need examination and verification before new narratives", precisely why I said "if the scientific establishment ultimately agree Corona has a mortality rate in the 0.1-0.3% Influenza etc" (operative word there would be "if" and the word "ultimately" implies after lengthy scientific analysis period, which I'm pretty sure the likes of Stanford and the CDC are good at)

See! They needed the vaccine. Show that to the antivaxxers

Ian wrote: "See! They needed the vaccine. Show that to the antivaxxers"

You're all over the show, Ian... One minute claiming a whopping 5% mortality rate, then when debunked on that you shift to "the way science works is to______", then you jump to yet another separate subject of vaccines. Clever scientific DEBATING skills at least ;)

What matters is the mortality rate and the R0 rate Iain mentioned. If I eventually see high mortality rate, then I will change my opinion and my approach to my own health during this time. But so far, all scientific studies (like the CDC, German and Stanford ones I've listed) seems in the range of Influenza (media narrative and overreaction aside). Again, I'll be happy to change my mind if and when convincing scientific evidence of a mega deadly virus is revealed...

Wrong, James, you wrote:
then we would not need to "attract a cure or a vaccine" anymore than we would NEED one for Influenza..."

I am merely responding that maybe we DO need one for influenza. You opened the door.

As for the mortality rate, I have been steady on 5% based on statistics where the SARS virus has been detected for sure. You have introduced the 0.1% based on a claim for which I have no details so we disagree. If I could see the details on how this figure was reached, I could change my mind.

As for transmissability, in NZ here, one person introducing the virus to a wedding led to 83 cases. (And killed the groom's father, and got both bride and groom. That is a wedding they won't forget.) That shows signs of being really transmitted if there is close contact with a number of people.

There's now another one . . . .

Flu virus with 'pandemic potential' found in China

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-532...

Oh joy - another virus to contend with.

Ian wrote: "As for the mortality rate, I have been steady on 5%..."

Lordy!

Iain wrote: "There's now another one . . . .

Flu virus with 'pandemic potential' found in China

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-532..."

That's either one of two things...

The Corona upgrade Covid-19 HD Pro Plus Max

Or the Corona sequel: Covid-20

But I'm aware it's swine flu this time.

Iain, given the animal aspect, and given there's plenty of fake meat around now, do you foresee animal meat may soon be banned? Could a country like China feed their citizens if all animal meats were suddenly banned?

James wrote: "That's either one of two things...

The Corona upgrade Covid-19 HD Pro Plus Max

Or the Corona sequel: Covid-20..."

Given we already have an established brand here, and market awareness, I prefer COVID-20...sounds a bit like Covid 2.0!

Then of course we need a trilogy to complete the franchise, so COVID-21 in 2021...Sounds like Covid 2.1

Hollywood couldn't script this any better!

We can also get around the swine flu complication re the title by following the old Hollywood maxim: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story...

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "There's now another one . . . .

Flu virus with 'pandemic potential' found in China

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-532..."

That's either one of two things...

The Corona upgrade..."

I dunno. but funnily enough a ban on natural meat due to that might also compliment a reduction in the carbon footprint . . . .

Food’s Carbon Footprint

https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbo...

Well there's another maxim that might be at play here, Iain... A political one... Never let a good crisis go to waste!

The political opportunists are circling like vultures

Remember the 2009 Lockdown period for Swine Flu?

Oh wait, there was none...

"In 2009, a novel H1N1 influenza (flu) virus emerged to cause the first flu pandemic in 40 years. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic was estimated to be associated with 151,700 to 575,400 deaths worldwide during the first year it circulated."

Fauci seems more concerned than James, and seems not to believe the CDC claims that Jasmes adheres to
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...

Ian wrote: "Fauci seems more concerned than James, and seems not to believe the CDC claims that Jasmes adheres to
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto..."

Still no 5% mortality rate in there, Ian...

And the CDC, who Fauci works for you may be aware, last cited 0.26 percent mortality rate (widely reported, as per links posted earlier in this thread).

But again, if you have any studies to allude to the Armageddon level virus you're convinced the Earth is experiencing right now (a 5% fatality rate with this R0 rate would be worst ever recorded), then by all means post here. Then we can figure out Armageddon survival tactics together :)

As I have said persistently, James, the 5% comes from deaths where the SARS virus was confirmed in a body before death, divided by the number of properly assigned viral infections. These measured statistics do omit infections where no symptoms are shown AND no tests were done,l but faulty reporting goes both ways and nobody can do more than guess what is missing. They also assume an average age and gender distribution because they are taken from across the world. Some societies, such as Sweden report higher death rates. Lower death rates have been recorded where there is excellent medical treatment and the hospitals are not overloaded

If you wish to persist with such low numbers, give a reference to how the figures were obtained. If they look sensible, fine, I shall change my assessment. A principle of science (Royal Society) is, as I recall, nullius in verba.

Ian J Miller, thank you for restoring my sense of proportion!

Ian wrote: "As I have said persistently, James, the 5% comes from deaths where the SARS virus was confirmed in a body before death, divided by the number of properly assigned viral infections. These measured s..."

happy for you to get the last word on this Ian, happy to agree to even 55% just to end the saga!

Doomsday' COVID-19 modelling a huge and costly overreaction https://www.news.com.au/national/doom...

'Doomsday' COVID-19 modelling a huge and costly overreaction
Doomsday health modelling released at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic has proven to be a huge and costly overreaction, according to The Australian's Adam Creighton. The famous Neil Ferguson model released by the Imperial College in London predicted millions of deaths and prompted the implementation of strict lockdown restrictions in the UK and the US, Mr Creighton told Sky News host Paul Murray. Similar models were used in Japan, Sweden and the Doherty Institute in Melbourne which forecasted even with a major lockdown and extreme social distancing restrictions, Australia would need at least 5,000 ICU beds. Mr Creighton said “it has been a great thing the virus has not been as lethal as we first thought, but the economic damage … is just enormous”. The latest IMF forecast predicts $12 trillion dollars worth of output is going to be wiped from the world economy in just two years due to the coronavirus pandemic. “I think the lockdowns are in the long run going to be worse than the disease itself,” he said.

Ian J Miller, I have had people justify the lockdown by insisting that we "would have had" 60-90,000 cases clogging up the hospitals. That was absolutely never going to happen. As for my friend, even oncologists have acknowledged that the system let down many people by ignoring them in favour of the imaginary 60,000. They were no diagnosed, & like my friend, will wish they'd died of Covid-19, at least they would be getting sympathy not shrugs.

Ian J Miller, masks are useless. They won't protect you against getting infected, they will stop an infected person passing on whatever they have, c'est tout. A relative works as a health professional, & gets ropeable seeing people wearing their winter woollies as PPE.

Ian J Miller, haemorrhagic fever, WTAF? Since bleeding when? That sounds like what I heard someone refer to as Project Fear.

James Morcan, I have brought up the Swine flu issue on Twitter, reaction, accusations of being a Trump supporter! I am British in New Zealand, Trump is 100% irrelevant, also irrelevant to the lack of a lockdown. The figure I saw for Swine flu cases worldwide was 23,000,000

Debby wrote: "Ian J Miller, haemorrhagic fever, WTAF? Since bleeding when? That sounds like what I heard someone refer to as Project Fear."

I saw a reference that the virus was attacking some cells after it got into the blood stream like haemorrhagic fever does. It is NOT a haemorrhagic fever, but the question is if the virus can live in the body without generating sufficient immune response to kill it, and if it mutates, what damage will it do?

I am not suggesting it is that dangerous now, but I am suggesting there are things we still don't know about it, and it wouldn't hurt to get rid of it.

Debby wrote: "Ian J Miller, masks are useless. They won't protect you against getting infected, they will stop an infected person passing on whatever they have, c'est tout. A relative works as a health professio..."

I agree masks are not guaranteed safety, but they may well be better than nothing, especially if they are used properly. And yes, they do help stop someone transmitting.

As for modelling to predict how many will clog up hospitals, I also despair of such models, nevertheless in NZ it would not have needed very many to flood the ventilators. Many/most hospitals have less than ten, and if on one, you can remain for nearly a month in some bad cases. Models are useless unless the assumptions are clearly stated.

I don't follow the "wish they'd died of Covid-19," - it is a fairly uncomfortable way to die, and dying is sort of irreversible.

Ian J Miller, it's irrelevant what could have happened. My son's hospital sent all but the most critical patients home, he braced himself, then found himself with an unwanted 2 week holiday lockdown.
Why did you miss my point about dying? My friend W., is dying anyway, & is more aware than you are that it's irreversible. He sat there in church on Sunday trying to hide the fact that he was in screaming agony. His death will take months of deterioration, unsedated for the most part, whereas anyone intubated must be unconscious. Do you begin to understand now?

Debby, I am sorry for your friend, but the fact that people were sent away from hospital is because the hospitals had to be ready for viral infections, and such infections could spread through a hospital and kill people who would otherwise survive.

What could have happened is not irrelevant. People responsible for being prepared have to make decisions before it happens. Such decisions are terrible to make. My daughter happens to be a senior hospital physician and believe me, some decisions are known to end up hurting someone, but they have to be made otherwise quite terrible outcomes can happen. I know some people think this virus is overrated as a danger but that is not the case for the weak in hospitals. Also, I cannot see any physician permitting the weak to be left in a position where the virus will kill them. A virus is not a euthenasia tool

Debby wrote: "James Morcan, I have brought up the Swine flu issue on Twitter, reaction, accusations of being a Trump supporter! I am British in New Zealand, Trump is 100% irrelevant, also irrelevant to the lack ..."

I am apolitical, but get accused of being a Trump supporter or conversely a Radical Leftist when I am trying to debate scientific data and the philosophical/ethical debate. And what's worse, I'm finding (sadly) many doctors and scientists are talking in "narrative" instead of hard scientific data...Weird.

Professor Neil Ferguson. the British epidemiologist whose modelling (at the London Imperial College) led to the initial world-wide lockdowns, "believes that only 8 per cent of the British population has so far been infected with coronavirus" (About 5 million Brits)... This is a VERY important estimate (based on real science, albeit an admitted estimate) to understand as currently in Britain there are only 300,000 RECORDED cases. So an estimated 5M versus 300,000...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/he...

Debby wrote: "Ian J Miller, masks are useless. They won't protect you against getting infected, they will stop an infected person passing on whatever they have, c'est tout. A relative works as a health professio..."

Censored: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy And Why Face Masks Don’t Work https://technocracy.news/censored-a-r...

Denis Rancourt, PhD, has published over 100 peer-reviewed studies in his career, but ResearchGate choose to censor and remove this paper (on masks).

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt’s account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt.

There are links to about 25 scientific studies on masks in the end notes of this article. https://technocracy.news/censored-a-r...

James wrote: "Professor Neil Ferguson. the British epidemiologist whose modelling (at the London Imperial College) led to the initial world-wide lockdowns, "believes that only 8 per cent of the British populatio..."

Which presumably means there is plenty of potential for further infection. I saw another report in our news that, from some measurements of what was claimed to be a random sample, but probably wasn't because how would one get a true such sample, that in California the infection rate is at present 1 in 140. If it takes at lest 60% to start to get herd immunity, there is a way to go yet with this virus.

Which also presumably means about 40,000 people have died out of about 5m+ infected brits... Death toll will increase, but still...do the math

I think the 5 M is a whopping overestimate, and again, we would have to see how he reached that number to be sure.

Verbatim from the CDC's website:

What do your results mean? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-...

"If you test positive:
A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold."

Until the health authorities can supply the following information, I refuse to believe that the COVID-19 virus has been isolated in a laboratory and therefore no vaccine can be made to protect against developing the disease:-

1). Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus?
2). What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which the ‘virus’ is illustrated and it’s full genetic information described?
3). What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?

If the Health Minister cannot give full answers to the above points, I will be entitled to assume that 1, 2, & 3 are not proven to exist, and there is no scientific evidence or backing for the existence of ‘Covid-19’, Therefore I will be justified in non-compliance with any mandatory vaccination program.

Anni wrote: "If the Health Minister cannot give full answers to the above points, I will be entitled to assume that 1, 2, & 3 are not proven to exist, and there is no scientific evidence or backing for the existence of ‘Covid-19’, Therefore I will be justified in non-compliance with any mandatory vaccination program...."

Do you believe that will be enough to make you exempt from any mandatory Rona vaccine programme your nation may initiate?

Anni wrote: "Until the health authorities can supply the following information, I refuse to believe that the COVID-19 virus has been isolated in a laboratory and therefore no vaccine can be made to protect agai..."

Regarding 1, I believe yes, but as for 2, I don't know. It would be able to be found by computer searching, I believe but I believe the first determination was from China.

Most people will have coronavirus antibodies because most people have had many colds, and coronaviruses are responsible for about a third of them. (Rhinoviruses for most of the rest.) The antibodies don't stop you getting reinfected, eventually, though.

Is This Torture? (Does the handling of this virus amount to torture?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yk3x...

By comparing our situation to the study of torture & coercion on Prisoners of War, I believe it becomes clear that what we are being put through with the virus response is a near perfect parallel to the Amnesty International definition of torture & Bidermans ‘Chart of Coercion.’