And remember, there could have been a zig towards SARS/MERS toxicity rather than flu-like toxicity. Better to keep the transmission rate as low as possible so more places didn't max out their medical facilities. Remember the reefer trucks holding those who died from covid, and places with 95% ICU occupancy and real problems getting a delivery room?
Here in Canada the numbers from effluent testing suggests a very large wave is starting. So far, there has not been a spike in ICU occupancy although hospital occupancy has started to tick upwards. If this continues to be the case, we're in a fundamentally different place with Covid. And man, I hope that's the case - we all do.
It was amazing. All testing was compressed from ~10 years to less than 1. For a brand new type of medical procedure using rna - that had previously failed to gain to approval. Hmm.
> effluent testing
I have heard about this sort of testing.. But again, since when did this become a thing? What does this sort of testing actually do, why is it something worth evaluating at all?
Edit to add my findings on effluent testing, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0690-1
"It is not currently possible to directly convert concentrations of viral RNA in wastewater to disease prevalence in a community. First, the biological variability in viral RNA excretion over time and between individuals creates problems in this estimate. This variability is then compounded by variability in the sewer systems across communities, particularly their size, configuration, and whether they include stormwater and industrial waste. However, longitudinal trends of SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels in wastewater can still be helpful in complementing traditional surveillance methods to understand trends in community transmission."
If one didn't want mRNA vaccines, there are others that older mechanisms for delivering inactivated viruses, protein fragments, etc.
EDIT: it's sorta a dream to have the patient manufacture the drug matter, particularly if it's manufactured in a particular site in the body. This could have applications in cancer treatments or for localizing side-effects. Something that only appears in the screwed-up environment of cancer cells beats the snot out of dosing something that happens to kill the cancer cells faster than the patient.
I understand you saying that.
My 'screed' is truth. I confess I do not trust my government to provide me the truth. It seems to me that the way the data is gathered and presented is not seem to be open or clear. Given that, I am interested to read what others are able to uncover from the bits of data that are provided.
> most of the people getting sick are vaccinated because most of the people breathing are vaccinated. As another writer pointed out - tally outcomes not infections.
I take that point - but as I said re the NZ data, its not clear that it is a tally. For me though, if 70-90% of people getting ill are vaccinated as you say, that's terrible! What is the value of a vaccine? According to the definition of vaccination I hold to (and I know this has been conveniently changed), very few should become ill once vaccinated. And since when do we have so many vaccinations, in such a short time? This is all new science, as far as I am concerned.
Why did governments take such a hard line, locking people in their houses for a year, preventing unvaccinated people from travelling, locking down the world economy, etc? None of it makes sense.