kohlrak: There's no evidence of human to human transmission. I'm just going to point out that ethics seems to have left the conversation a long, long time ago with science.
Canuck_Cat: [links and several quotes: sorry had to snip this way, 'cause something is preventing me from posting my response if i don't]
I recommend you read
this for more information. I know it's just text, man, but common.
That said, there are things we can do about this industrial activity without cutting down production, as well.
Yes, absolutely. Can maintain current output, but regulations should be increased to minimize these externalities companies are creating. Though the big problem is getting global industries and governments to buy in since reclamation is an unnecessary cost and adds to direct operating costs.
Regulation has proven to be inefficient and wasteful. Conversely, incentives should be used, instead, to improve the market. Moreover, it's not western countries doing the most pollution. By contrast, in most recent years we've been far, far more more responsible than more regulated countries. Unless, that is, you happen to have evidence to the contrary.
snip
Yes, it's extremely perplexing to me why this wasn't taken seriously back when the report first came out. The issue was quite politicized by both sides that it was difficult to understand its validity and to do a deeper investigation into it. Especially when misinformation was incredibly rampant.
The thing is, alot of this information was coming out prior to politics playing into it. It's not all that perplexing to understand that people who think the average person needs controled would have no qualms about sacrificing lives. I mean, we do it all the time for wars and "conflicts" which we seem to start willy nilly.
Interestingly, I'd like to know why the vaccine takes 4-6 weeks to work when the incubation period is supposedly 2 days and it supposedly only takes 1-2 weeks to produce antibodies, given that the vaccine simulates a real infection without the chain reaction effect of a real infection. Just incase anyone wants to look in on the special interest of this whole thing. I'll give you a hint, China was quite public on the matter.
Oh, and how do vaccines work if actual infections don't produce the necessary antibodies?
I'd check with your family doctor. For your other concerns:
- 1st dose is to introduce your body to the weakened virus or simulated virus
- 2nd dose is to increase the quality of your antibodies and its quantity (T-cells to memory B-cells)
This is not true, and oddly is anti-vaxxer propaganda. It also doesn't actually address either question i asked (which i'm aware of the answer to).
- Dosing schedule was designed in tested clinical trials to determine the best effectiveness
- Depends on whether the vaccine is viral vector-based (Astrazeneca) or mRNA-based (Pfizer / Moderna) will have different vehicles of transporting the vaccine's genetic data to stimulate antibody production
I didn't ask teh questions due to some desire for an inspecific vague answer from authority. I asked the questions because the answer isn't complicated. In fact, the mRNA technology, while complicated to produce, isn't even remotely difficult to understand.
So, i'll just help and give out the answer:
The vaccine simulates an infection without reproducing the entire virus, but only the part of the virus that the body will recognize and target (the viral capcid which includes the ACE2-binding spike protein in particular), thus won't cause cytokine storms or anything else that causes death in people infected with the real virus. The body takes 1-2 weeks to produce antibodies. So, 6 - 2 = 4, so then the question becomes "what are the 2-4 remaining weaks for?" The answer's not hard, either, it's the CDC's 2-day incubation period, because 1 day is made of 2 weeks, right?
There's a reason I mention this, and it has everything to do with the lock downs, the quarantine period, etc. The irony is, China gave us the correct information in this regard (2-4 week incubation period). The problem is, if you have a 2-4 day incubation period and that results in 1 week quarantine, how long do you quarantine someone if they have a 2-4 week incubation period, when you want to be safe? The answer is, 2 to 2.5 months, and can you imagine everyone self-quarantining for that lock 'cause their allergies acked up or someone near them had allergies that acted up? Now imagine, especially, the medical profession. But, you see, when we have a SARS-like virus not all that different in manifest patterns from the one in 2003, we make sure we don't quarantine people and stop traffic to and from affected countries until we know for sure that it's actually human-to-human trasmissible, because racism.
It's difficult to go based off direct causes because there are so many factors involved with life expectancy over a long period of time that you can only make associations at best with models to correct for other factors. High-income countries on average consume the most red meat and alcohol and coincidentally have the highest life expectancy, but they usually much higher quality of life improvements compared to developing countries.
What that means is you're tackling the problem from the wrong angle. Instead, we should be addressing specific causes of death and actually figuring out what things lead to those causes specifically. For meat consumption specifically, we have to look at historic data as much as possible to isolate other causes such as culture. Right now, the richest countries are mostly northern countries which are likely to have a higher affinity for preserved drinks (alcohol) and meats (because the moving animal is easier to spot in snow than the berries that we can't smell or the citris fruit that doesn't grow there). You'll also see "traditonalists" like amish or menonites doing this strange process called "canning" that you're not as likely to see in areas closer to the equator (because the cold isn't killing your crops).
Yes, this is right ... quantities to be harmless.
When you quote alot of of text from someone, it's generally helpful that when you snip, you leave context for the snipping, as i did here (i left a few words and used elipses to indicate omission).
GamezRanker: As I said above: a number of us had a good idea of the origins of the coof long ago. Not many listened, and the experts that did and agreed with said ideas were mostly mocked/shunned/etc.
If it was described more as a virus they were studying for research purposes escaping their virology lab, people may have been more receptive to that idea and it would've been taken more seriously. Instead, I was hearing manmade, engineered, bioweapons, biological warfare, etc. With no evidence to back these claims, so they were quickly dismissed by experts.
You see, we have this lab that just happens to be only a couple miles away from the presumed ground zero of the virus that studies viruses. You know, though, because my political opponents are being incendiary, there's no way they could be wrong. Oh, and i'm sure they're tinfoil hatters who believe that
there's some kind of secret government mind control project conspiracy, too, but that would never happen, right? I mean, it could be possible, but because the idea of mind control rays is ludicrous that means everything they say is wrong,
right?
And non-Chinese scientists did study the virus and ruled out being manufactured or manipulated in the lab back in March 2020, and the lab director and institute director also denied any links and accidents too.
Yes, and now how good is their credibility? How the hell can you come to such a conclusion on something like that on technology that we're still developing? You see, this computer wasn't hacked, because it'd have to be hacked this way, and we know that a computer can only be hacked by sticking a disk in the drive, not by exploiting vulnerabilities through this new internet technology.