So when you said "no protection", that's not actually what you meant. Fine, whatever. So long as you're acknowledging that it does convey protection.
Yes, it transmits via airborne droplets, like covid.
You were the one who brought up the infectious dose as a metric of how transmissable something really is. You were the one who posted that link. And now you're dismissing what it says, because the infectious dose for the common cold shows it's easily catchable from a few minutes' contact.
More irrelevant waffle. Lots of people did silly things early in the pandemic, when anxiety was high and the nature of the virus (i.e., that there's no significant fomite transmission) was largely unknown. Nobody here is saying it's necessary to wipe down vegetables.
You argued against lockdowns on the grounds that they shut some nutritional and immunisation programmes in a handful of Asian countries. To which, that article line is totally irrelevant, and the argument itself falls apart as soon as you look at the countless countries that locked down without ending such programmes.
Protection from severe disease and very very short-term immunity (like any other infection does).
You don't get sick from basically anything from going to the store (not even the super highly transmissible diseases) because it takes more than just coming into contact with very tiny amounts of a virus/bacteria. If that was the case, people would be constantly sick. If you did one of those fancy movie shots from like Outbreak where you see the germs floating throughout the air and landing on stuff, I bet just about everyone that goes to the store comes into contact with them whether through the air or touching things, yet you don't get sick from shopping. I posted the article because you don't just get sick from being in contact with like one molecule of a virus and even if the common cold or covid has a rather low infectious dose, that still takes time to get that dose. This is all not very exact science, which the article mentions, as it obviously very hard to do such studies on. They said that norovirus has a very low infectious dose and requires touch to spread as it's not airborne. Whereas the cold or covid don't need a very low infectious dose to be very transmissible because they are airborne. Humans are with other humans for long periods of time extremely commonly.
This is one of the other things we already knew. China did the study on covid surface transmission and only tracked one infection to an elevator button. We knew before it broke out in the US that this was the case. So much of covid we knew that people failed to acknowledge.
The countries that help other countries with such assistance would obviously not have said assistance during covid because it is not essential. My job didn't want people traveling to other parts of the country that were red (high infection rate), you think countries are sending their citizens to other countries during a pandemic? Immunization and other health screenings / checkups / whatnot in wealthy countries went down because people didn't want to go out and do things because of covid, they put things off.
You wrote this... straight after you wrote this
Utterly fascinating.
You have a story that vaccines and lockdowns are more dangerous than COVID. This is a lie. A political narrative that got hundreds of thousands killed as well as massive detriments to community, security and the economy
It's 2026. It's been six years.
I literally have never said vaccines are more dangerous than covid (just because some specific groups got more harm than benefit from the vaccine doesn't mean on the whole the vaccine is more dangerous). There's a happy medium to locking things down. You definitely want to have people not be indoors in large groups so stuff like theaters, conventions, restaurants, etc would be a good thing at closing down. You definitely want to focus on protecting the vulnerable whereas the most restrictions went to the group of people that were the least vulnerable (kids). You don't want schools to be close because kids are least vulnerable and schooling is important (other countries did these studies and found schools should be open). The democrats in America were like the only people in the whole world wanting schools closed, completely anti-science. The left closed down parks and beaches for literally no reason. In America, smaller businesses were very much disproportionately targeted to be closed when huge stores run by corporations were allowed to be open. This allowed for quite transfer of money from normal people to the rich, but you all say you are against that but you're are for that when it agrees with your narrative.
Also remember people getting mad at GameStop for staying open during the pandemic? Why would you get mad at a business wanting to stay open during the pandemic that isn't a business that requires groups of people indoors at one time? Nobody was like these liquor stores should be closed too!! It's because people wanted the alcohol. Funny how people don't stick to their principles...
Phoenix
did in fact argue that "the vax is more dangerous to certain groups than actually getting covid".
Most of the time, that's the case. Though
here he posted a "cost-benefit analysis" that argued the harm of lockdown in Canada outweighed not only the harm it mitigated, but also the entirety of the harm of covid to that country, and even the harm it would have done if there had been no lockdown.
((The basis for concluding such is asinine, but that's the argument the report makes))
That is scientifically true.
Are you arguing you know more about cost-benefit analysis/covid/lockdowns than the people that did the study?
What Phoenixmgs is talking about is, if taken as he says it, would possibly lead to a few thousand deaths in the US. What I'm talking about led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I'm willing to say it could only be 600, 000 or 700, 000 unnecessary deaths. If you do the math, it could be as high as 1, 000, 000. I was already discounting hundreds of thousands of deaths because I was already thinking about how not all of them would be preventable
That does not mean that there aren't problems with lockdowns. I have many criticisms of Australia's lockdown... But just because I have criticisms, that does not mean that it wasn't the best option at the time. The person who implemented the Australian lockdowns was one of the worst leaders Australia has had. I still say it was the best option. I had to support someone I do not like for the betterment of my country. Phoenix cannot do this
The problem is that Phoenix was wrong, and many of the deaths that he claimed would happen under a lockdown did not happen. I don't mean that they went back to normal rates, I mean they were less than the average year. Most of the criticisms he has about lockdowns are factually untrue. I'm very willing to discuss real world problems, not made-up alternative facts. He kept on going on about how Biden would force vaccinations onto people without realising that Trump, through inaction, forced the US population into a medical crisis, which forced millions of people into medical debt, which forced businesses to close. He never saw COVID as a real threat or thought about the damage it was doing, and he changed the definitions of words to fit this narrative
In short, he put his own beliefs about his own country, and the country paid dearly
The perfectly common sense things that I mentioned to your other post (just above) would've accomplished probably like 90% of the more egregious lockdown policies because a lot of them weren't based in science and didn't do anything or did very little. The left kept kids out of school and they all got covid anyway, what was the point? What did that accomplished but essentially make them miss a year of school and miss a year of childhood? And that caused more benefits than harms in your world? You do realize this is something that I think literally everyone has now admitted was a massive mistake, right? Again, I and many experts said that it would be a massive mistake because literally the rest of the world didn't do that.
www.huffpost.com
www.latimes.com
www.tmz.com
www.independent.co.uk
