Sociopath Community

Good bot

The virus is caused by looking albino children in the eyes, doctors suggest averting your gaze at all times 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Good bot

 Thanks

"People seem to think Corona beer is related to the deadly Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, as searches for 'Corona beer virus' are trending"

Turncoat said: 

"People seem to think Corona beer is related to the deadly Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, as searches for 'Corona beer virus' are trending"

 This saddens me. Why must people be so retartded

FOTS said:

This saddens me. Why must people be so retartded

Must be something in the alcohol. 

BUMP

I wanted to reflect on my predictions and research about COVID now that enough time has passed and data is becoming more concrete and reliable. Despite the fact that all the data and information we needed to make the right decisions is out there, if only the right people had looked, we still made mistakes on every level. This pandemic was a true testament to the ignorance of people in power and their inability to research problems they are legislating, a strong strike against elitism. We knew about the danger of using respirators, but we destroyed peoples' lungs en masse anyway. We know that cloth masks are useless and that if you touch a mask it must be discarded or it will no longer prevent transmission, but we mandated mask use anyway— a facade.  We knew that our testing methods were inaccurate, but we used them to track infection anyway. We knew that comorbidity must be used to determine cause of death, but we ruined the death toll data by including them anyway. We knew that coronaviruses should only have 2 strains, and this was mentioned by leading virologists, but nobody questioned it a second time when we hit the 4th strain.  We knew our mortality rate was inaccurate—because of comorbidity counts—but we still let corporate media scare people with inflated numbers.  Lastly, we knew myocarditis increases young peoples' risk of dying of heart conditions earlier in life, but we told people the vaccine was safe anyway. Yes, mRNA vaccines do increase your risk for heart failures if you had myocarditis after vaccination—by 40% if memory serves me right.

~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~==~

The main takeaways from looking back at my research after the pandemic ended:

It appears that COVID-19 initially followed the 2-strain model for spread which would imply that the pandemic should have been over after the second L-type strain worked its way through the population.  However, we all know that this did not happen. It is extremely irregular for coronaviruses to follow a multi-strain model if it is a naturally occurring variant.  However, that is less relevant when you consider that Philips et al. state that the multi-strain models ignore too many factors. 

Philips et al. said:

Multistrain metapopulation models may be generalized by considering arbitrary numbers of strains and/or populations, or by shedding many of the assumptions included here.

This part is entirely opinion and hopefully we see some research on this.  I think, based on the invalidity of the multi-strain model for naturally occurring coronaviruses, we can more safely assume that COVID-19 does not portray the typical characteristics of coronaviruses and may very well have been modified through gain of function.  The feeling is being echoed in newer research that I haven't looked into so I do not know the specifics of why the gain of function claim is increasing in validity. It is even more likely when you consider that the Wuhan institute frequently failed its viral containment strategy inspections and there were "serious concerns" about their handling of viruses. 

I am not attributing motive, however it is clear that the testing data which were used to track the spread were significantly inflated due to their inherent inaccuracies and we ignored the research that told us of the problems with that current method.  This is a little more relevant when you account for the widespread misdiagnosing of COVID deaths due to hospitals not accounting for comorbidities, because many were informed not to by government agencies.

The mortality rate of COVID-19 was originally exponentially wrong. It was estimated at 3.4% at the time of the original post, which I discounted as incorrect.  I did not state it in the OP but I was calling it at slightly less than 2%.  I did not predict, however, that we would now determine it to be lower than 1%: lower than the flu.  I was undecided, to a small degree, if the mortality rate would resemble SARS (10%).  I was leaning toward 2% based merely on logic and how immediately disastrous a virus like COVID-19 would be with a 10% rate. This was clearly the more accurate conclusion. It would have been painfully obvious if the virus was actually as deadly as they initially reported.  

It is rather interesting to look back at the bat origin claim.  It is clear that it gained prevalence due to our awareness that a large number of SARS strains are present in the cave bats of south China that all contained the necessary components to be transmissible to humans.  It's actually rather surprising that we don't have more pandemics despite that fact.  This is especially true since it is predicted that pandemics will occur at much higher rates in the future due to our encroaching proximity to animal populations as our own population grows toward its 10 billion person cap. Coupled with the lack of proper medical care and ability for cleanliness associated with developing nations and the increasing rate of travel between countries, pandemics should be rather common in coming years.

I was very sure that it came from the Wuhan Lab, and that I felt suspicious at how quickly that theory was swept under the rug, even in Europe. But now I don't keep up anymore.