Quote:


So Bill Gates can make ANOTHER fortune from the vaccine he's gonna make in his soon to be built, brand new, Chinese vaccine factory.

Fu**in' guy is the king of viruses.

 You seem to acknowledge that the potential of natural antibodies not working came later than the onset of the disease and research into a vaccine:

"Now they are saying
Those antibodies won't protect you.."

 This, to me, reads that the discovery is recent.



"So, if antibodies from HAVING it won't protect,, then WTF is the point in trying to develop a vaccine?"


 So are you saying they shouldn't try to develop a vaccine until they know for sure if natural antibodies work?

 Or if they think that natural antibodies won't work, they should immediately halt research on a vaccine?

 It's pretty obvious to me that vaccine research pre-dates the antibody-might-not-work discovery, that is at this point speculative.

"But they Chose to tell us every hour
More dead from CV"

 I don't use the same data sources as you so I imagine my numbers are either more clear- (for instance UCOD and DCOD are separated), or they lower than whatever you are seeing.


"AND, they NEVER even TRied to quantify the number of asymptomatic, they KNEW they were a part of the equation YET, they determined nthe Mortality RATE without even TRYING to include those figures"

 I am aware of 3 different methods that were evaluated to create a semi-reliable asymptomatic assessment, (I'd reference them but the smallest is 27 pages and we know nobody reads that type of stuff here)  but the primary problem is that asymptomatic means "no way to know" unless there's a test given.

 Testing is a huge problem because it didn't exist, then so many were garbage, and now availability of reliable tests is still too limited to test ever human in the country.  To say nobody tried to come up with a way to evaluate asymptomatic people is incorrect.  

 How would you recommend quantifying a group of people with no symptoms, and no test to find out?


 I sort of understand your concern about rushing to a vaccine, but how long would you recommend waiting to start research which is not trials, or distribution?  What are the parameters for researching a vaccine?  Then trials would begin.

FWIW - I have never got the flu shot, and never got the flu either.

If Ive ever had the flu, I dont remember.. I never get the shot. I managed to dodge the shot in 73, in the Air Force,, that took some doin,,

Okay, so here we see Three people who don't take the shot
AND
Who don't get the flu.

Aaaaand, unless people are living under a rock, they know people who take the shot and get sick A.F. right afterwards. My wife gets sick every year, but she has to, for her job.
I don't understand why people take it.

know at the medical center they mandated flu shots and saw a decrease in call offs, and stopped mandating after 3 years due to egg allergies.  There was an increase in flu related call-offs and it decreased again once the mandate re-started.  I don't remember the exact numbers but definitely double digits.  This is an average of 2700 people annual

Would more information be good?
Certainly, but that is enough to make me feel better..
But it would be great if they realized my wife gets sick every year, when she takes it.. this year took a long time to get over..

Also many high fatality flu seasons have a significant number of those who took the shots.
Its almost like your body has an immune system that has its head on a swivel and is fighting all flu strains. But take a shot, and you're now fighting the most common for that year 3-4 in your region/state/county/country.

Then a foreigner brings in a virus that's not one of those 3-4 and they're asymptomatic because they're un vaccinated, so they're fighting all the ones they encounter. Your immunity has been hyper trained now to work on those in the shot. And that strain now gets you.

Cool.
Srinath.