placeholder

Do more than 99% of people who come down with symptoms survive? What about hospitalizationsializations? What would that odds for that be in people experiencing symptoms? You think it's a good thing that hospital resources are being directed at a disease that could be treated at home?

It would cost $10 to treat someone vs. $700 for molnupirovir. And if the results of the study hold up, it's far more effective.

Really? I've made predictions for 50 years in advance? What would those be?

How did they ever let this study of a widely available and cheap generic drug be released? The antidepressant fluvoxamine can keep COVID-19 patients out of the hospital A 10-day course may work as an easy at-home treatment for early COVID-19, a clinical trial finds An inexpensive, easy-to-take pill could be the next weapon in the arsenal against COVID-19. Taking the antidepressant fluvoxamine within days of showing symptoms of an infection can dramatically cut the risk of hospitalization and death, suggests the largest trial to date of this FDA-approved generic drug as a COVID-19 treatment. In newly infected COVID-19 patients at high risk of complications, a 10-day course of the antidepressant fluvoxamine cut hospitalizations by two-thirds and reduced deaths by 91 percent in patients who tolerated the medicine, researchers report October 27 in the Lancet Global Health. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-antidepressant-fluvoxamine-drug-hospital-death

50 years? Anything else from that crystal ball to report? Maybe it has a filter that keeps out the develop of such technologies as structural batteries. http://sustainableskies.org/massless-batteries-aircraft/ https://innovationorigins.com/en/how-researchers-plan-to-integrate-the-structural-battery-into-aircraft-components/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2482/electric-airplanes-batteries-included/ And keep in mind that fossil fueled engines are a lot more inefficient than electric powered engines.

Whereas this Bogan's failed predictions about Tesla make him look intelligent?

Another contributor to The Journal of Because I Said So.

I'll have you know that the President of Tanzania emphatically denied that Covid had killed anyone in his country. And he kept on denying it right up until the the time he died from it.

Another mitigating factor is that most home charging can be done in the evening when power demand on the grid tends to be a lot lower

Why do you think that a power plant has to be located near an urban center?It's not a matter of seeing things differently but facts. New York City gets part of its power from Niagara falls, which is 370 miles distant. Or take the case of Texas. Its big wind power projects are located in the sparsely western, northern, and southern portions of the state but sent to the densely inhabited parts of central and eastern texas. That's hundreds of miles. And the latest HVDC power lines can transmit current about 600 miles with only a 1.6% loss of power.

You're assuming that battery charging times will remain the same and that renewables aren't steadily increasing their share of the electric power market

Tesla Surpasses $1 Trillion in Market Value as Hertz Orders 100,000 Vehicles https://www.wsj.com/articles/hertz-orders-100-000-teslas-11635167670

I'm not calling you a liar. I noted that your claim to have read the paper wasn't substantiated by any evidence.. Now things have changed. It's now established that you've read the potential conflict of interest disclosure. So you have read something. As for the scientific part of the article no real evidence you've read yet. And it would be more alarming if those scientists hadn't disclosed potential conflicts of interest. And do you honestly think a huge paper like this published by the CDC has not been and will not be subjected to very close scrutiny. And it's odd how you, an anonymous party, apparently resent having your personal assertions questioned, but jump with alacrity to question the honesty of these researchers whose names we know and whose qualifications can be easily ascertained.

This post is truly puzzling. What does the attribution of deaths to covid have to do with a piece of research about the rate of deaths that are not attributed to covid? Did you even bother to read the first words of the research article in question? "COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk" Or this? "Non–COVID-19 deaths were those that did not occur within 30 days of an incident COVID-19 diagnosis or receipt of a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) via reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction or rapid test." It is to laugh.

Straw man much?

Given that you have provided no evidence that you even have read any of the study, much less all of it, I'm a bit dubious of the soundness of your critique.

It's takes an awful lot of naivete on the part of some people to assume that the potential weaknesses of a study hadn't been accounted for by the scientists and statisticians conducting it. Had you bothered to read the introduction to the study you would have found this: "To ensure comparable health care–seeking behavior among persons who received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not (unvaccinated persons), eligible unvaccinated persons were selected from among those who received ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine in the last 2 years." And as earlier studies have found, those vaccinated with flu shots seem to be less likely to suffer severe symptoms from covid and die from it. So, if anything,in this regard that variable was overcompensated for since no such flu shot criterion was imposed on those who had been vaccinated. And, despite this, the authors of the study did, in fact, acknowledge that risk factors might still have influenced their report. And the study was huge: "The cohort consisted of 6.4 million COVID-19 vaccinees and 4.6 million unvaccinated persons with similar characteristics as the comparison groups." That's about 3% of the U.S. population.

When that someone is in disagreement with pretty much the entire scientific community and is incapable of producing facts to back up his case, the odds are vanishing small that they're right.

You can't link to the Bangkok post or quote from it but you can refer to it. Anyway, thanks for the link.

This kind of link is like telling someone you've got proof and it's somewhere in this million page book. If you can't link to a specific page, that means you're just bloviating.

Anything in there about death and hospitalization rates that goes against the government narrative?

Even though it jeopardizes the health of others by clogging up the hospitals' ICUs?

Well, the problem is that hospital ICU's have been stressed to the point that triage was actually imposed in several states in the USA. And that was due overwhelmingly to those who refused to be vaccinated. ANd is it the choice of vaccinated people to have their health care suffer because of the foolish of the refuseniks?

It's only side income for restaurants? Really?

So are people claiming that businesses mandating vaccination means dictatorship being truthful? Also, you're still operating under the assumption that the only government that is significant in this regard is the USA or states thereof. You really want to go with that?