341–350 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider what happens to peoples’ immune systems when you box them up in quarantine and spray them with disinfectant every day for a few years. It won’t be only COVID-19 popping when that artificial suppression ends. RSV, influenza, etc.
What does disinfectant accomplish against respiratory viruses? I thought it was just for show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China's approach never had any chance of bringing the pandemic to a fast end. No contagious respiratory virus has ever been stopped through such means. Once the first infected carriers left Wuhan in December 2019 any possibly of containing the virus was completely lost.
>No contagious respiratory virus has ever been stopped through such means It worked for both SARS and MERS. Even though more contagious, it might have worked for Covid until it escaped to Europe in early Feb 2020.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the screenshots I posted above are from live broadcast days ago or VOD I just played?
I assume they're from an unedited VOD of the live broadcast, whereas the ones with the censored audience appear to be the state media's edited highlight clips that they shared on social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Minority Oversight Staff" AKA the senate republicans. Sorry, they're not a credible source on anything scientific. This makes me think it was a natural accident even more, frankly.
Thanks, this is the kind of information I'm after. So, the Senate is not a trustworthy source of information? I'm not clued up on US politics so I really have no idea how the system works, upper/lower houses, senate is lower? Like the house of commons in the UK? e.g. could an analogy be this is like a small party of Brexiteers making a document on how leaving the EU is economically a sound idea? There is no requireme…
When it comes to documentation from the US government, you have to consider the source agency, think of them like individual sources rather than all part of "the government".
Most agencies are fine, you have to be careful when you see things coming from Congress though.
If it's a report from the CBO, GAO, CRS, or other agencies that are a PART of Congress, they're great, generally VERY reliable: https://www.google.com/search?q=congressional+agencies
However, if there is a report from any committee, you have to vet it more carefully.
Step 1 see if it was written by a bipartisan committee, if not, it's probably trash. I'm a liberal but I wouldn't blindly trust reports from any partisan committee, but GOP committees tend to focus on creating propaganda for political purposes rather than actual actionable plans or reliable data. They focus on blaming whatever the topic is on Democrats above all else.
Reports from bipartisan committees TEND to be better, and ones endorsed by the entire Congress are pretty bulletproof, like the Warren Commission or the 9/11 report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given what I know about the modern man in general (being one, being around them), it's possible that more healthy men do not catch covid and also have higher sperm counts to begin with. Not sure if the study took that into account.
> it's possible that more healthy men do not catch covid I'm pretty certain that that is not true. There is no study I've seen that correlates (either positive or negative) susceptibility to COVID with general health.
Or it could be that Chinese audiences & tastes aren't so big on watching cheering crowds. I am rather sceptical of this being evidence of censorship. Maybe, I could be swayed if it can be shown this is a clear break from tradition of showing crowds that started since the recent protests in china.
Quoted post unavailable.
You unfortunately have a long history of breaking the site guidelines. We've warned you many times:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29153719 (Nov 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24812992 (Oct 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24681670 (Oct 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23523404 (June 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21132128 (Oct 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20445657 (July 2019)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12821183 (Oct 2016)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11433610 (April 2016)
Moreover, you're still doing it—I took a quick look through your recent history and saw several posts that were breaking the site guidelines.
If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to do that, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on? Posts like this are seriously not ok on this site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they know something we do also know - Covid is bad. Mass infections in Western countries is already an identifiable factor in reduced labour force participation - millions of people not working because of long covid, or need to take care of people not working. Add in the long term (maybe permanent?) cognitive impact, letting Covid run free is a objectively a bad idea. The problem for China is that the entire world ha…
> (...) letting Covid run free is a objectively a bad idea (...) there are increasing problems with being an outlier (...) they were not wrong to do covid zero - we all should've done this, together I do not understand this argument. It seems to me like you're saying that zero-COVID is better in the long term, but now worse for China in the short term as they are the only ones clinging on to it. If we all had done ze…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoid “China Insights” or anyone self claimed as China watchers if you don’t want to become victims of propaganda.
Everybody, including you, have an agenda. China Insights is great because they always provide video evidence and high quality references (such as official government documents). The fact that China Insights in the video claimed that the media blurred the audience outside the live broadcast (which again was backed up by video evidence) is a testament to the high quality and factual accuracy of their reporting.
I would not trust anything they say, even if they claim to show evidence, because there is a very high probability that they are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence (for example, deliberately mistranslating documents, knowingly putting false captions on photos, etc.). A lot of false rumors about China that make their way into English-language media trace back to Falun Gong and their various outlets (such as the rumor that spread on Twitter several weeks ago that there was a military coup underway in China).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a potential paradox here because of original antigenic sin (from the paper name): basically the vaccines only present one antigen whereas in natural infection there are multiple antigens. Once the immune system learns one it generally doesn’t learn more on the next exposure (actual infection). Combine that with the antigen presented by the vaccine (spike protein) being the more frequently mutating antigen an…
>basically the vaccines only present one antigen whereas in natural infection there are multiple antigens. Once the immune system learns one it generally doesn’t learn more on the next exposure (actual infection) Surprising, it looks like this isn't really a problem. The immune system manages to adapt to handle a greater variety of strains, if you give it long time between boosters/exposures, so memory B cells can ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Perhaps they know the risks of COVID and correctly weighed them to the risk of the shot Are you implying you think the known risks today of taking the Pfizer vaccine are equal or higher than that of catching COVID?