🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 11:07:49 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-05-18 5:35 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 3:47:51 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote: 
> >> On 2022-05-17 12:35 a.m., Will Dockery wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:57:18 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote: 
> >>>> On 2022-05-15 7:59 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The Spanish Flu is still just as deadly as it was in 1919. 
> >>>>> The last known outbreak of the influenza strain which caused Spanish Flu killed 284,000 people out of 491,382 confirmed cases. Looks like a 50+% mortality rate there. 
> >>>>> That was in 2009 [90 years after its first known appearance in 1919] 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> I looked up information on this 2009 epidemic. Here are the U.S. 
> >>>> figures: "From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there 
> >>>> were 60.8 million cases ... and 12,469 deaths." That's a case fatality 
> >>>> rate of 0.02%. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The CDC did estimate "that 151,700-575,400 people worldwide died from 
> >>>> (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection during the first year the virus circulated." 
> >>>> The estimated number of infections wasn't given, but it sure as hell 
> >>>> can't be as low as 500,000 for the whole world, when there over 60 
> >>>> mlllion cases in the U.A. alone. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> So much for your claimed "50+% mortality rate." When are you going to 
> >>>> stop spreading anti-scientific misinformation? 
> > 
> > Nice projection, Dance, you're the one flirting with the alt-Right dismissal of science in favor of individual freedoms
> Yes, I do believe that people have human rights even in a 'public health 
> emergency'. And I think it's just public-health fascism, or Faucism, to 
> try to deny that. Mind you, you're not the only one making Faucist 
> arguments.

But where do your rights begin and my rights end?

Do I have the right to jeopardize your family's health (and, in the case of Covid, lives) because I think that vaccines are a scam?

When two sets of human rights conflict (mine to go unvaxxed, yours to keep your family safe), safety should take precedence over choice.

> > Produce some proof that I do believe in let alone spread misinformation, you're the one that dismisses the media as fake news
> So are you; though you do it selectively, applying it only to the 
> information sources you don't use (while still believing that the ones 
> you do use are telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth).

We all have to determine which news stories to trust -- and to what extent we should trust them.  I prefer to read stories from different sources, sift the actual facts from the opinions and conjectures, and form my own opinion based solely on the verifiable facts.

IMHO, at this point vaccination should be mandatory; wearing masks, optional.

> > finds "media control" amusing which dismisses anything from the CDC as part of the control, so I find it strange that you refer to CDC sources.
> First, the CDC is all the U.S. has; if you're going to dismiss stats, 
> you have to do so by producing better ones. Second, while the CDC is an 
> organ of government propaganda, some of which has killed people, it does 
> like anyone with a propaganda line try to stick as closely to the truth 
> as possible.

Agreed.  One has to form judgements based on the most reliable sources one has access to.  

> > Seeing how cocky you have become and how bizarre your arguments have become, I couldn't resist drawing in you so you can demonstrate it even more.
> I hope you're seeing it here.
> > I don't hear the scientific community agreeing with this "non lethal virus evolution" you
> But you haven't looked into it, have you? 
> Here's something for you: a book and lecture by the UK's top 
> epidemiologist, Sunetra, Gupta, who explains how viruses evolve. I found 
> a video lecture which is embedded: 
> https://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.com/2021/07/framework-for-understanding-pathogens.html
> > try to lull people with a false sense of security, which is the whole point of this trap. 
> >
> Oh, you've discovered the trap! Tell me, when I've lulled people 
> sufficiently, what am I going to do with them?

Bury them.

(Not that I think you're lulling them into a false sense of security.)

> >>> As usual, Ash just makes it up as he goes along. 
> >> Well, now he's trying to claim that that wasn't the 2009 epidemic he 
> >> meant; that there was some other 2009 epidemic with a 50% death rate, 
> >> that unlike the above was the real Spanish flu. 
> > 
> > I made a mistake in referring to the Spanish flu, it hasn't infected humans again since 1919 although the experts say it can happen again so they're preparing for it.
> The original strain may be gone, but all the Influenza A subtypes out 
> there are variants, or variants of variants, or variants of variants of 
> variants, ... of the Spanish Flu.
> There's too many variants of Influenza type A and outbreaks for 
> someone with just a passing familiarity to keep straight. But I didn't 
> refer to the 2009 swine flu pandemic which fortunately didn't have the 
> mortality rate of the avian flu(s) and I would had known my case & 
> fatalities numbers were too low.
> Thanks for acknowledging that. I haven't looked up numbers for avian 
> flu, either, but I'm willing to bet (no-cash) that they're closer to 
> 0.02% than to 50%.
> >> It's possible there was an epidemic of H1N1 in 2009 that killed 284,000 
> >> people, somewhere in the world, and if he produces some evidence that 
> >> there was it's worth looking at the figures and seeing if the death rate 
> >> comes anywhere near 50%. 
> > 
> > I told you I was incorrect about H1N1, it looks like it was H5N1 I was trying to refer to with a 50+% 
> >
> I still think it'll be closer to 0.02%. But we can both look, and then 
> we'll know.
> >> If not, I'd say it's fair to conclude he produced those numbers out of 
> >> his ass. 
> > 
> > "HPAI influenza virus H5N1, which has a mortality rate of approximately 60%" 
> > "Global alert to avian influenza virus infection: From H5N1 to H7N9" 
> > Yong Poovorawan, Sunchai Pyungporn, Slinporn Prachayangprecha, and Jarika Makkoch 
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001451/ 
> > (NIH National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine)
> Thanks. The paragraph on "H5N1 Outbreak in Asia" was interesting. Let me 
> summarize 
> (1) In the first known outbreak (1997), there were 18 cases and six deaths. 
> (2) Then is mentioned the 60% figure for the 2003 outbreak, though the 
> paper that this one cites <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9482438/> 
> doesn't give any death statistics, but only talks about one case. 
> (3) Both (1) and (2) are examples of a novel virus spreading from 
> animals into a naive human population (just like the first cases in 
> Wuhan with their high mortality rate). But the paragraph goes on to tell 
> us what's happened to H5N1 since: 
> 
> Currently these HPAI H5N1 viruses continue to circulate in poultry and 
> humans *with their genetic evolution aimed at adaptation to their hosts 
> over time*.19 (stress added) 
> 
> Up above you said you'd never heard of the "scientific community" saying 
> that viruses can evolve to co-exist with their hosts. Now, thanks to 
> your own detective work, you have.