Live data from Hacker News

In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

aier.org

311–312 of 312 posts

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 spreads faster than influenza because two studies on different populations at different times found R0 of 2.5 vs. 1.7 respectively is indeed false--that difference is obviously within the expected spread from different environments. I thought the top reply to that comment (quoting Wikipedia) clearly implied that, so I didn't think any further effort there was required. You posted other…

> we know this because influenza cases went almost to zero during the pandemic, implying that the same behavior in the same population We don't know this no, what you said here is just an assumption. There's a competing hypothesis (viral interference) which seems to explain the data better. The way epidemiology currently works just cannot tell us which virus is more infectious. I agree that a rebase onto microbiology…

> There's a competing hypothesis (viral interference) which seems to explain the data better.

How would that explain why SARS-CoV-2 suppressed influenza, instead of influenza suppressing SARS-CoV-2? If viral interference occurs (which I agree it may), then the two simultaneous pandemics are coupled; but you'd still expect the virus with higher R0 to win.

Re: In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021)

#312
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. >Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition…

My main point was how they pushed the vax on people even when existing data showed young, healthy (which means no obese, diabetic, hypertense individuals), males were not at sufficient risk to mandate it in universities and push it on everyone regardless of the obvious data by age group, health, and susceptibility. That is not science. That is social policy and politics in the face of common sense. Please stop co-opt…

UPDATE: Paper showing a 1 in 35 (22 out of 777, or 2.8%) myocardial injury of 777 eligible participants of an original 1871 employees of a hospital after receiving an mRNA-1273 booster [1].

This is only after 3 years of the vaccine's first dose. That is a pretty large percentage - 2.8%.

I sadly expect to see more and more of these studies with other unsettling results. To the universities who pushed it upon the healthiest of us, they should be ashamed of saying they did it in the name of science when young people were the least affected, and the elderly could be prioritized.

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

Post reply on HN