Topic: Covid-19 could have been a lot worse - could a blood poisoning virus end us? (Read 807 times)

the funny thing is that jetcash is afraid of childhood vaccines.. yet he himself is too old to be applicable to get them. so he is panicking over nothing
he probably doesnt go abroad or have random sex to need some of the other vaccines that people who travel have

it doesnt mean he is healthy because he avoided vaccines. but avoided getting sick by avoiding random sex orgies with unprotected prostitutes in vietnam. while eating streetfood and drinking the unfiltered river water over there.

he and others like him worry about things like mercury and monkey kidney cells in vaccinesand yet if he done any research in the last few decades he would know that stuff is debunked.
heck he is even too old to become autistic. even when there is no proof of autism vs vaccine.
but i will make one warning..
when a childs parents are elderly. that can have more of a birth deformity rate on the kid. so i would advice you on avoiding random unprotected sex to make sure you dont get someone pregnant.
...
then if he looked at the ingrediants of a vaccine and then googles that ingredient in comparison to food he would surprise himself

this 1 tin of tuna has 3x more thimerosal than a vaccine

also tuna has methylmercury - bad : dont break down and accumulates in body
vaccines have ethylmercury - good : does break down and excretes out the body

1kg bag of frozen veg has 3000x more formaldehyde than a vaccine

maybe its best to do some checks away from antivaxxers websites
oh and there is more kidney cells in tuna then there is in a vaccine
(tuna meat processing plants can cross contaminate the fishguts)

About vaccines making people sick is very possible, but also the food we are consuming these days are the major reasons people immune system are getting weaker. Like you said, people are moving away from natural foods that can boost immune system and moving towards refined and generally modified foods which are not natural, the natural combination is different from artificial combination, some foods are planted this modern era by fertilizers which alter combinations in food planted that way. All these can lessen immune system.

About the use of vaccines, I do not know any proof that it could weaken immune system, but I know what is not nature will surely weaken body immunity, vaccines can have short term healing process but it could make humans weaken in long term, that is why we can not be healthier and stronger like our forefathers.

Other ways immune system are reduced are the environmental pollutants and ways of living.

I've just put you on ignore Franky - you seem to be in a different word.
Vaccines are designed to make people sick these days, and I want them to be healthy. I've posted many time about fiat, and the fact that a fairly minor virus is being amplified to cause an economic meltdown so that bankrupt fiat systems can be replaced.

Id you believe all the claptrap that comes from the BBC, the bankers, and big pharma, then that is your right, but please don't try to justify it to people who are intelligent enough to observe the real world situation, and protect themselves. I haven't lasted this long by injecting disease into my arm, or by eating refined sugars and ultra -processed foods. You don't have to consume cream cakes, burgers and Coca-Cola to enjoy life. Wimps these days seem to need pain killers and antibiotics if their friends scratch their fingers.

anyway, back to the topic at hand

if covid19 was a bigger sized 'particle'. meaning it didnt need to replicate as many times to burst cells. then it could be more dangerous. but as i said. there is a limit to how big it can get before its too big to be aerosolised. which then limits its transmissability. and also too big to even get into the cell to even do anything

its why deb collectors dont employ super obese guys. yea they may look big and scary. but if they cant even fit through someones front door or get in a car to go to peoples houses in the first place.. they cant do their job

isnt it weird how your the one crying about revenue's and saving the economy.
sounds like you are a fiat lover and a government tax lover.
(polar opposite to most bitcoiners)

i personally care more about peoples health and would rather have someone find the safest way to live without the risk of hospital needed care

i know you prefer to get everyone sick and screw the ones that die and call it darwins law
but thats just your selfish unethical uncaring view(maybe you have an inferiority complex but masking a superiority complex to over compensate. EG you actually afraid to the virus but pretending it doesnt bother you and seeking to show others how much it doesnt bother you by telling others to get sick on your behalf)

for those that beleive that they are not even going to get really sick if infected, well then theres still no rush to force infect you and your family.. if its no harm in the first place immunity wont be of worry to you.
EG it doesnt matter if your infected now. or in 6 months or in 2 years.. no harm at any point so no need to worry about being immune asap

its like bug spray. if you dont care about bug bites. then you dont need to rush out to get bug spray because bugs are of no consequence to you.
but while your not caring either way about bugs. your telling people who do suffer badly with bug bites to go stamp through bug nests and force themselves to get bit by bugs

such an idiotic approach. especially when you keep circling back to the reason being the economy.

I really think you should stop pushing the globalist agenda. Even their publicity announces great news that they may have a vaccine that is close to the natural immunity. Well what a wast of money - why not just go for the free one that nature spent thousands of years developing. Of course that will mean a massive loss of revenue for the Pharma companies, and Bill Gates and his cronies won't be able to push their eugenics projects. There aren't any side effects either, so they won't be able to peddle their damaging symptom suppressors.

Stop spreading alarm by reporting the spread of the virus as a disaster. Think of it as beneficial as the spreading of immunity. Of course we have to look after the vulnerable who have messed up their health with vaccines and Pharmaceuticals, but we can educate them, and help them to get a bit closer to healthy living. The real disaster is the way governments are using it to reset economies to conceal decades of theft from the people.

Ebola virus infected many people not because people can be infected through blood, are are many other means this virus was able to be transmitted from person to person. The means of transmission of the virus are

1. Through blood
2. Through faces
3. Through vomiting

These are the most common means the ebola virus is able to transmit into another person. The virus is also communicable through other means like

1. Brest milk
2. Urine
3. Semen

Even in a male that is recovering into health still have the virus in his semen for over 70 to 90 days. In

In saliva and tears, scientists were inconclusive because the samples were small in size to their requirements, but study shows the virus in severe condition is found in patients saliva. In sweat, the virus was never found.

The virus can also be transmitted through previously contaminated surfaces.

Lastly, it is rear for the virus to be transmitted through coughing and sneezing, it is even said that it might not been spread this way.

you cant spread immunity naturally without the virus triggering it.
so the only hope of 'spreading immunity' without spreading the virus is to have a vaccine
(spreading a safer, inactive variant of the specific strain)
or
spread the virus but have the health risks of those that need hospital care because of the virus

as for the memory t-cells they have blueprints of 2002 sars. and your body can then make some minor variant 'pot luck' random antigens that are similar to the base blueprint but slightly different.
but its not to the same scale of abundance
nor does you body already know about covid19 by knowing sars2002
its jsut pure luck of variation

your body has many billions of the base memory t-cells, which means only a few hundred or thousand random pot luck antigens 'could' latch on to a new viral variant thats based on a previous virus

however many people dont have these early defensive stuff for covid19 and instead are reactive to figuring out how to fight it once it has trojan horsed into cells and caused damage

the scales/chance of safe inherent defensive immunity is a small percentage
distance and reduction of viral load invasion is much safer then the 'hope' your health is high enough to have enough pot luck random antigens and healthy enough to replicate those random antigens into more once it has lathed on and signalled the need to make more antibodies
and healthy to replicate faster than the number of invaders..

in short reduce the risk/amount of viral load. and dont be so quick to wanna have a full on fluid exchange orgy of megadosing the virus with people you know, thinking your doing the world a favour by spreading it

If a person has brittle bones, then it is probably caused by a dietary deficiency in them, or their parents. Alternatively it could be the side effect from one or more pharmaceuticals.

I thought that blood viruses could be spread by fleas and other insects such as mosquitoes.

Research seems to have found that memory T-cells created during recovery from the 2002/3 SARS epidemic are still active 17 years later, and can give protection from the current covid virus. There is no suggestion that any of the current vaccinations can even remotely approach this - not even the ones that are costing billions to develop.

Hopefully sanity will prevail, and we will be able to increase the spread of immunity before the virus resurgence arrives in the winter.

to first address jetcash's endless ignorance of biology
if someone had brittle bones (break easily)
and they tripped over and fell down the stairs.
comparing the incident to someone else thats healthy who falls down the stairs that survives..

it is said that the brittle bone patient died due to an inhome accident with co-morbitity of brittle bones
meaning yes he had brittle bones but the trigger of the death was the trip.. he would have lived a longer life if he didnt trip.
someone with sticky blood(diabetes) cant fight infections fast. so when infected the infection overwhelms them
they didnt die due to sticky blood because the other 365 days of many years they had sticky blood and were perfectly fine. yet the infection was try trigger and the sticky blood lowered the persons immunity battle against the infection..
thus it was the infection that killed them. with co-morbidity of diabetes

..
anyway. as for talking about ebola
ebola is ~1,400 nanometres in size and an air droplet is only 100 to 1000nm meaning the only reason ebola was not 'aerosolised' was simply that it was too big and heavy for air droplets to carry it

its also this size that even at a slow replication rate it can fill and burst a cell open easily and quickly
because just 1 ebola virus is all thats needed to burst a cell.
yet corona would need 3-4 viruses to fill a cell into bursting point
also air droplets can carry multiple corona viruses per drop. thus making corona viruses transfer between people more easy via air

so you get the idea of the differences.of scale being the main factor

if ebola was small enough at say 100nm it would then need to be 14x faster replicatable just to be as savage as its parent full length version

the bodies 'factory' which viruses use to replicate is not that quick. so i would not consider it a scenario to even address. in short there is a limit to how fast a virus can replicate. a limit to how big the virus can be before its too big to enter a droplet of air or a cell.

(a 7foot tall person can curl up in bed and be comfy. but if he stretches out or someone else gets into bed and forces him to stretch out. he suddenly is having his legs pushed out over the bed)
yet a same size bed can comfortably handle 4 kids curled up)

the body wont be 14x kids in the same time that it takes daddy invite mommy to get into bed.
so dont worry an aerosolised virus wont be as savage as ebola. but do expect what ebola can do in 24 hours to be something like 4 days in aerosol form. less savage but still freaking bad

the only other variable would be:
how prevalent it is in the environment. meaning how much viral load is being passed
and how much of a defense the body can put up in that time period

for instance a kiss and saliva exchange passes more of it in a 3 second kiss than standing at 2 metres and just getting breathed on for 10 minutes
by having distance and avoiding fluid exchange wont cause much of a invasion by millions of viral particles to cause a massive battle to defend against. but instead just a few hundred/thousand per breath

and if your body is immuno surpressed by many reasons. or already suffering from cell damage meaning not much more damage is needed to cause critical problems. then this can be the cause of a fast acting virus hurting more people

if you factor in a 'optimum' viral size and an 'optimum' replication rate. and also the method of transport in a utopia where everyone is having a mass orgy..
then expect mega trouble

oh wait thats the HIV scenario in ancient rome which led to the christian religion abolishing sex outside of wedlock and abolished same sex relations.. as their method of disease control
funny fact right

Most of the deaths of people with Corona Virus are caused by co-morbidities. There are two other pandemics at the moment - one is a vitamin "D" deficiency, and this increases the impact of CV problems The other is the Hantavirus, and this could increase as rats multiply during the Grand Solar Mimimum.

I was wondering if transmissibility of a virus might in general be inversely proportional to mortality rate. Looking at things from an evolutionary perspective, and from the position of the virus, it would be counterproductive for the virus's own survival if it killed all hosts. A virus that kills 100% of its hosts is not going to become a pandemic, because those hosts will quickly become incapacitated and not be able to spread the virus to new hosts. A virus that kills no-one on the other hand, and that only elicits minor symptoms, is likely to spread like crazy - the common cold as an example.

Does anyone have an opinion on this, or (preferably) data to either confirm or refute the hypothesis? It may be the case that we are very unlikely to encounter something that is both highly transmissible and kills a high proportion of people, it may be that it is almost always one or the other, never (usually) both. Or is this just blind hope?

I've had a quick look on the web, and found the table below, which would seem to corroborate what I'm suggesting. But I'm saying 'almost' and 'usually' above because smallpox looks like a bit of an outlier...
I think it looks like there is a relationship there. First one to suggest confirmation bias gets a virtual de-merit. 


_{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457920300265}

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

Transmission through saliva wasn't fully proven but things such as vomit, blood and semen were. The problem with ebola was that it lingered - for example semen for 70 days... The nurse from the UK that caught it managed to recatch it due to it lingering in eye fluids afaik and that was around a month later I think.

If it travels through bodily fluids you've still got a chance to get infected if you have an open wound or even a red rash (sometimes blisters and scabs too especially if they're put under pressure)...

The virus doesn't only travel on the blood; it travels on every bodily fluid. That means that there is a risk of contagion on people coughing (very rare), vomiting, sweating, having sex without protection (and even protected, because we do all sweat a bit...), and many more cases I can't even think of as of now.

I have a question. How does a virus manage to contact people if it only travels through blood? Unless you're bleeding, blood and hence viruses stay inside your body. I still don't get how ebola was able to infect and kill so many people through this path.

Thank you, I hadn't seen that it was an old image, and so potentially misleading.

I think the point is still valid though - even at 6%, CV-19 would have much lower mortality than something like MERS, and we are lucky in the sense that this current pandemic doesn't have that sort of mortality rate per infection.
But whilst I wouldn't be surprised to see China faking its figures, I do think it's true that probably many cases with low-level symptoms and most asymptomatic cases aren't tested, and so skew the reported mortality rate. A good health service alone is unlikely to account for Germany's orders-of-magnitude lower mortality than Italy, whereas their huge testing programme might explain it.

Either way, this CV-19 pandemic is serious and must not be underestimated. Governments have been lucky in that they have a chance to learn a valuable lesson here, and so be prepared for the emergence of anything as bad or worse in future.

Just a heads up: I've posted here and there this image too long ago. It's important to tell that this image / statistic is old and it's most probably based on the official numbers from China.
Since then the percent of fatalities caused by Covid-19 have more than doubled - almost triple (showing imho that the original numbers from China were faked).
The image tells about 1 in 50 = 2%. The current numbers tell 5.96%

This is very true. Look at the MERS outbreak a few years back, mortality rate reported at around 34%. Fortunately MERS does not transmit anywhere near as easily as COVID-19.
MERS had a very high mortality rate, but low transmissibility.
CV-19 has a low mortality rate but high transmissibility.

The current situation with CV-19 is terrible, and many people are dying. But it could have been a lot lot worse. We are lucky that this thing has a low mortality rate. It could quite easily have had both high mortality and easy transmission, in which case we could conceivably be facing the end of civilisation at the moment.
This is why it is vitally important that lessons are learned here. This poor response from governments cannot happen again. The next time we have a global pandemic, governments must be much more willing to suffer economic damage in order to protect their populations, they must act more quickly and more decisively to contain the spread.




_{https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/comparing-outbreaks-coronavirus-mers-sars-health-epidemic}

Yeah there's a bit of a difference in how they function but they're still pathogenic and it was more of a myth dispeller since a lot of the scientific community still believes it'll kill 95% of people.

I'm not sure about getting rid of the virus or whether it's possible but it's definitely possible to prevent the virus from spreading as much and inhibiting it's reproduction rate dramatically. I've also heard of successful drug trials for pregnant women, whereby the baby was HIV negative from a HIV positive mother.


A death rate of 4.1% is very close to my potential 5% in the OP and both are subject to everyone getting the medical treatment they need as it is required.
Viruses are able to replicate and evolve at a much higher rate than humans are, and such it may not be impossible for one virus to mutate it's way into being from blood transmittable to airbourne.

I think we could have taken a more recent example of a virus rather than going back to the 1600s, but since you've started the thread with that, I have correction to make. The bubonic plague was (is) a bacterial infection; and not a viric infection. The difference may seem futile, but from a biological viewpoitn, it's not. Bacteria are alive; viruses are not (they are DNA or RNA inside some lipid body).

Now, I'd take some more "recent" viric pandemic in order to compare the data. The perfect example of that is the HIV virus; responsible for AIDS.

Both pandemics had (still have) its greatest impact in Africa, and then spread to more "developed" countries.

The Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit from London did some research on that, and placed the death ratio on almost 41 pacients out of every 1000. So 4.1% before 1996. That number has decreased quite a lot in the last couple of years, since retroviral treatments are being more effective, and I recall a recent news article saying that there had been a person that got rid of the virus (first case).

That 4.1% might seems like a low number compared to the evola numbers you put, but there have been way more cases of HIV than of Ebola in developed countries, and thus, the higher mortality rate.

Apart from that, even if these all are viruses, they come from different families, so they are not really "the same" thing