So, given that you are completely and divinely at ease with an untimely demise of 200.000 people in India up to now, plus many, many more hundreds of thousands elsewhere, with millions to come if we do nothing, as you and your ilk suggest we should - then I would have to agree with some who are indeed calling for eugenics - the eugenics of those who are calling for eugenics or are so magnificently aloof that they are willing to see millions die of C-19 or similar diseases, just to be "more comfortable" and "go about their business as before", such as your good self... P.S. The worst part to deal with in these discussion are these callous ones, who have no idea who they are, what they stand for and are blurting it out loud or write about it openly, in all directions. And you know what they want? To stop me from doing the same, i.e. write equally freely and openly - because I am telling them what I think of them and their "glorious ideas". And how dare I challenge THEM!?!? So, what does that tell us? That they should be "revered" or that they are "retarded" or "emotionally challenged" or... What do you think?!? I think that these people are DANGEROUS!
Exaggerate, eh? Here, exaggerate this! https://covid19.who.int/ https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19 https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?Si, Roughly: Coronavirus Cases: 153,385,138 view by country Deaths: 3,213,308 Are you nuts?!? This is exaggerating, right?
Fake figures, fake statistics and you are a fake good citizen of the world. You don't care for anything or anyone else but your pink toes. Destroyer of cultures. Poison you are. Ne supra crepidam sutor judicaret, go and drop your verborrhea at your classroom.
Well, it seems you are either unwilling or incapable of preparing a simple Excel spreadsheet so I made one for you. Using the source documents you posted I prepared this: Once again you are bloviating hysterically without any reference. Furthermore the link you posted, while it shows totals, it doesn't show demographics or percentages. So I figured I'd prepare one that does, for the USA. It's clear that different states have different infection and death rates. But the average death rate is 0.18% for the USA. Although there are no breakdowns with the India data, it appears that they are doing much better than the overall average of the USA as well as the average of all countries reporting in the link you posted. In fact the India death rate percentage of 0.0156%is approx 12x better than the USA rate, and approx 3x better than the world rate. Seems to me India is doing a pretty good job of containing the fatality rate of Covid-19 compared to other areas of the planet. It would be interesting to compare the total Covid-19 deaths in India in relation to Heart Attacks, Strokes, automobile accidents or other major causes of deaths in India. I might put that together sometime.
Don't waste your time. He's doing this on purpose. He's intelligent enough to understand what some here and Yen specially has explained brilliantly here. He wants to argue to have chance to apply his "skills" to destroy arguments. He's just a pink troll parroting for the sake of making noise. Period.
Morons and/or sociopaths who are willing to sacrifice huge numbers of people on the altar of their "comfort".... You are your own greatest "publishing" undertakers!!!
I am sorry belief or assumption that it must have been the lockdowns should never be an argument to mess with the constitution. Being strictly scientific here contrary to you I claim for evidence. The constitution should be the last that ever can be touched. Restricting freedom should be ever very reasoned. The difference to you is that I am not pro draconian measures on any costs. We all know that infections appear as waves. The dynamic behind those waves are predominant. They have much more 'power' and overrule any political measure. This applies to raise and decline of such waves. And a lockdown always appears as if it had worked. You simply lockdown until the numbers are down again. And if it does not work at first place you simple wait until they naturally decline. Besides of that don't you see the double standards when politicians are arguing? When there is a lockdown and at the same time numbers are going down then they say: Relation = cause. When people get vaccinated and they die later they say: It is not because of the vaccines. It is a timely related coincidence and NO cause! They twist and bend! But I insist on studies which have statistical significance with a p value <=0.05!!! And here is such a study which clearly results there is no causality, means lockdowns have no effect. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484 The author is someone no less than John P. A. Ioannidis There is no legal reason for curfew and I hope that the highest court here will speak out justice.
Total nonsense!!! I am sorry, Yen but you are now going doo-lally... I repeat: there was no time for this drop, from more than 1700 excess deaths to the figure below, ONLY THE MEASURES COULD HAVE DONE THAT, in minor, very small part, by this date, helped by the vaccine rollout!!! Here's crucial data, so chew on it carefully: Covering India’s Covid crisis Hundreds of journalists have lost their lives Tokyo Olympics Japan nurses voice anger at call to volunteer amid Covid crisis Hong Kong Plan to force vaccines on foreign domestic workers sparks alarm New Zealand Country fires nine border workers who refused vaccine Live Coronavirus: EU recommends opening Europe to vaccinated foreign travellers; India nears 20m cases Mount Everest Covid outbreak throws climbing season into doubt Calamity of maternal deaths’ Covid concern grows for Brazil’s pregnant Coronavirus data Covid-19 in the UK 51.7% received at least one vaccine dose Daily cases 1,671 -41 v last week In hospital 1,451 -338 v last week Daily deaths 14 +3 v last week Cases and deaths as published on 2 May, hospital numbers on 29 Apr. Vaccine rate is % total population to have received one dose by 1 May. Source: PHE. P.S. I do agree that legally things should have been handled differently, of course! Fair point! However, you should know that the UK does not have a written Constitution, so there's that...
Lol why me? I have not published that study. Please address John P. A. Ioannidis. NPI's are not lockdown only. Any nonpharmaceutical interventions.
If you are posting it here it is not because you disagree with it, so let's not be coy, shall we...???
Yes, sure. I asked to address him instead of me for assuming going doo-lally...from where he's got that result? Playing dice? I think every study that has valid objections about whether a measure is working must be taken into account when it comes to constitutional laws.
Measures ARE working, c'mon!!!!!! (That's what I mean about you going doo-lally, as you can't bring yourself to see the BLOODY OBVIOUS, thanx to your prejudices!!!) EDIT: Unless you have a new kind of physics, biology, medicine none of us know anything about, naturally.... As I already said many a time: their lawfulness is another matter and that must be addressed, for sure - for the next one, we must learn the lessons of this one properly!
Once more. It's not about me, Yen. Why comes somebody such as Ioannidis to that conclusion whereas people perceive it completely different? It's not about me. It's about how can there be such a huge difference in perception about efficacy of NPI's? And it's not about who is right.....it's about doubts. The methods used are plausible....
There is NO REASONABLE DOUBT that the MEASURES WERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!!! They could have been better tweaked for some parts of the population (old people's homes, special educational needs kids etc. etc.), agreed - but there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the measures were a MUST! Definitively, you are right to question the procedures in terms of decision making processes in a democratic sense. In many countries this was done awfully incompetently or worse, so legitimacy of such decisions were rightly questioned. But that should not be mixed with the necessity of the measures! Two separate issues!
@gorski I respect your opinion. Real suffering is going on in India. I ordered ivermectin from them! Why do they not supply and use it themselves exhaustively? It is so cheap there! Have a look at Zimbabwe. And please watch what she has to say. "The patient experience of Ivermectin" Dr. Jackie Stone. Dr Jackie Stone holds degrees in medicine and medical biochemistry from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. She has worked in London, Dubai and Australia and holds a Diploma in Aviation Medicine. She now works in family practice in Zimbabwe. And this: https://medicalupdateonline.com/2021/04/the-impact-of-ivermectin-use-in-zimbabwe/ Do poorer nations necessarily have a worse situation because of having no vaccines? No they do not! Do money and hospital capacities count at first place? No IF medical reason prevails. IVM is cheap. Zimbabwe did it, despite of all previous obstacles. And look how they are today! For me there is nothing harder than to see what is happening in India although those people could be helped with drugs which are gorgeous and a real cure! It would reduce deaths a lot there and reduce so much suffer.
A legitimate question. A more important, deeper, more dangerous and burning question lies here: https://jacobinmag.com/2021/04/moderna-patents-covid-19-vaccine Moderna’s Pledge Not to Enforce the Patents on Their COVID-19 Vaccine Is Worthless BY ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK The media cheered Moderna’s pledge not to enforce the patents on its COVID-19 vaccine. But vaccines like theirs are still protected by intellectual property laws designed to keep medical knowledge out of the public’s hands. On October 8, 2020, the Cambridge-based biotech company Moderna did something curious. It announced that it was temporarily suspending patent enforcement around the vaccine candidate it developed in partnership with the US government. “We feel,” the company stated, “a special obligation under the current circumstances.” The tone of regal magnanimity suggested Moderna was just happy to help, doing its part during a difficult time. As with its colleagues in the wider world of pharma and biotech, the company was broadcasting a message that profits and market position were the very last things on its mind. Suspending enforcement around valuable intellectual property in the midst of a public health crisis appeared, at first glance, like a credible display of noblesse oblige, to be welcomed even if it carried a whiff of incense meant to displace the stink of recent corporate scandals. The media dutifully covered Moderna’s patent pledge as evidence of corporate social commitment in a time of crisis. The patent pledge was widely reported on the assumption that it would, as Reuters put, “allow other drugmakers to develop shots using the company’s technology.” The company was safe in its assumption that scrutiny would stop there, and the public impression would remain that of a sacrifice to help end the pandemic. But this impression is false, and not just because Moderna’s legal claims on technologies developed with government money is provisional in the first place. Moderna’s patent pledge was an empty gesture for another reason quite apart from its long-standing junior partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their entire ploy was premised on outdated public perceptions about how intellectual property works in the twenty-first century. Modern Patents on Biomedicines Almost Never Contain the Information Needed to Mass Produce Them The patent is a form of intellectual property, not a synonym. As inherited shorthand for knowledge monopolies, “patent” is a throwback, a progressively old-fashioned catchall reference that obscures more than it explains, like calling the supercomputer in your pocket a telephone. Understanding why requires revisiting the patent’s origins as a social contract. Emerging in Renaissance Italy, the first patents functioned as royal permission slips; having one meant you could benefit exclusively from a technology, process, or trade. This privilege was half of a limited-term bargain with the sovereign: in exchange for the monopoly, the recipient of the patent agreed to introduce a new and productive form of knowledge into the realm, to be diffused when the patent expired. As technological invention grew more complex, patents required more detailed information to serve as effective notes of collateral: to get the monopoly privilege, inventors had to reveal and submit all of their knowledge — sometimes called “trade secrets” — to the state. Until 1880, the US Patent and Trademark Office required applicants to submit miniature, three-dimensional models, along with blueprints, instructions, and diagrams containing everything that someone “skilled in the art” would need to reproduce the invention. When the monopoly term expired, the secrets were spilled into the public domain and, it was hoped, made productive at lower, newly competitive prices. In 2021, that social contract is as quaint as the miniature riverboat buoyancy device a young Abraham Lincoln submitted for patent consideration in 1849.
Measures and up to a degree vaccination rollout results: "On Monday, the UK recorded 1,649 new coronavirus cases and just one death within 28 days of a positive Covid test, the lowest figure since 30 August last year. However, there is always a lag in reporting deaths – greater at weekends and bank holidays – so it does not necessarily mean only one such death has occurred the previous 24 hours."
It's not on Biomedicines only. It applies to all pharmaceutical patents. It is and never had been the purpose of a patent. A patent is public and a broad range of a (juridical) claim. It contains technical / scientific aspects, but they are not absolute or certain. Mostly a range to cover (parameters) and / or a list of interchangeable 'agents'. You need to have the MFR! Master formula record! Only the MFR describes how to realize the product at a certain production facility. The MFR is protected by the patent and NOT public. The patent is so to say an public announcement of a claim to say hey this is my invention keep away from it (several years). BUT the details and know how is in the MFR which I keep secret. The MFR is specific / certain and has got certain parameters which are covered in the patent's defined ranges / lists of agents.
Sorry, Yen, you must read the whole thing with some patience and focus: "Understanding why requires revisiting the patent’s origins as a social contract. Emerging in Renaissance Italy, the first patents functioned as royal permission slips; having one meant you could benefit exclusively from a technology, process, or trade. This privilege was half of a limited-term bargain with the sovereign: in exchange for the monopoly, the recipient of the patent agreed to introduce a new and productive form of knowledge into the realm, to be diffused when the patent expired. As technological invention grew more complex, patents required more detailed information to serve as effective notes of collateral: to get the monopoly privilege, inventors had to reveal and submit all of their knowledge — sometimes called “trade secrets” — to the state. Until 1880, the US Patent and Trademark Office required applicants to submit miniature, three-dimensional models, along with blueprints, instructions, and diagrams containing everything that someone “skilled in the art” would need to reproduce the invention. When the monopoly term expired, the secrets were spilled into the public domain and, it was hoped, made productive at lower, newly competitive prices." The current state of affairs does not mean either that things were like that always or that they are meant to be like that for ever!
Yes that is right of course. The history of patents and the current regulations are versatile and complex. And of course changing (for instance from national to European). And there are some ethical regulations, for instance you cannot 'patent' a certain plant or species. You can patent a procedure to get an product out of a plant, though. And you can patent a basic molecule with different substitutes. (a defined range of them). It is of such complexity that we have our own patent lawyer. He's to update every year to be informed about changes. BTW We here will meet him soon and present our research results on a special own matter and will ask how are things for a new patent. But I doubt that a pharmaceutical patent ever contained that much specific know how that somebody "skilled in the art” would obtain a product of the same quality anytime soon. And either way if be able to (figuring it out after a relatively long period of time) it would be prohibited by the patent. (Not necessarily manufacturing but the distribution). You can do that for own research-purposes.... Actually what a patent might have been in the past is now the MFR. The vaccine makers would have to share the MFR.